From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Apr 26 13:24:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 26 Apr 2002 20:24:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 98836 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 20:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2002 20:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 20:23:49 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A7561300006E; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:23:50 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] So you think you're logical? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:23:47 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <155.cff629e.29faaeea@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >><'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'> >>Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were >any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently. >But I >usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make >this work out. >But very insightful for something generated by a computer program designed >to write texts using Markov chains, no? >I don't know about "insightful." It is a pleasant surprise that a machine can get as close asa this to things people do say just by adding some >probability measures in. Of course, I worry about the post-editing. What else turned up in this run? An awful lot that I don't remember. Running it just now, I get the following as its first ten distinct grammatical statements: coi na go'i co'o je'edai na nelci zo kreig ki'a mi ponsi lo jdini be ko'a i cortu ma nabmi do {It's probably been spending too much time talking to la elizas.} i mi'o ku jinvi le nu claxu gi'e cusku i e'o co se porpi There were numerous repetitions of 'coi', 'na go'i', 'co'o', and 'ki'a'. There were also many nongrammatical statements. ><>But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead >by the end of the 18th century. Why would we preserve it in Lojban? Aside >from >physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, >fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving >it -- it does >>not function well. And in those cases, {ri'a} still works. (I skip over >my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.) >The only prescientificness I can see is in the fact that if it were used >when there is no causation, it would entail a post hoc ergo propter hoc >fallacy. One would never use bai for this, because that would be fallacious!> >Well, it is always fallacious to infer causation from mere temporal succession, but it seems equally fallacious to infer that there is a force at work in >causal relations. What we often have is nothing more than observed repeated cases of the sequence of events that cohere with some explanatory narrative, >but no force -- indeed, no compulsion at all, just the way that things work in this world as a matter of fact. All of this has been a common-place since at >least the middle of the 18th century, so suggesting there is a force is a step backward. Of course, there are cases where there is a force and ten {bapli} >is relevent -- even correct, but these are not the most common cases. But if one event impels another to happen, is bai not exactly right? --la kreig.daniyl. 'segu le balvi temci gi mi'o renvi lo purci .i ga le fonxa janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet pygypy gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74 (laldo), 0x22C68020 (citno)