Re: [lojban] Lettorals

[Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com>]

On 27 April 2011 07:58, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your understanding of evolutionary theory is clearly off.  You're claiming
> that evolutionary processes yield an ideal design consistently?!  Have you
> looked at the inefficiencies of the human body?  As I said before, evolution
> in biology and in every other field is LAZY.  Does this thing survive long
> enough to re-produce?  Yes?  Great, it's good enough.  Does this eyeball do
> it's job well enough to make the animal survive?  Yes?  Great, good enough.
>  Just because something is good enough that does not make it ideal or even
> "good" for that matter.

Your understanding of what I was trying to say about evolution is
clearly way off. I clearly mentioned "local maximum" which should've
hinted that I do know what I'm talking about, having designed
evolutionary algorithms myself. For example, having both arms and
wings is clearly better than having arms XOR wings, but since our
evolutionary path got us stuck in the "arms" encampment


> "No natural language features even
> remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean
> that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in which such
> handling of pronouns comes naturally to it."
>
> This argument completely does not hold water.  Nor do you give any basis for
> your claim.

I do and you've quoted it: "No natural language features even remotely
similar mechanism for handling pronouns".


> Shoes did not arise naturally, we designed them.  Are
> you telling me that the human foot just doesn't work with shoes because
> shoes are a human designed construct?

I am sort of, but not quite. Human foot does work with shoes, but not
remarkably well. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_neuroma


> Sorry for being so confrontational on this point.  I remember reading
> through the CLL and finding all kinds of "problems" with lojban only to have
> xorxes or gejyspa put me in my proper place.  I shouldn't be so impatient.
>  .u'u

No apology required. I was not trying to say that lojban has problems
nor that it is flawed, I am simply trying to be realistic in noticing
that not every single aspect and feature of lojban is better and more
practical *in every single way* than its English counterpart.


-- 
mu'o mi'e .ivan.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.