Subject: [lojban] Re: spofu skami

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:08:41 -0500

At 10:50 AM 3/13/03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Instead of looking at the differences, you might look at the
> > similarities.
>
>*WHAT* similarities?!? Nerves collect data, collate it, and push it to
>other things *just* *like* *them*.

Not necessarily. If nerves ONLY communicated to nerves, then how would 
they control bodily functions.

Furthermore, not all nerves are alike - they have different levels of 
complexity, they respond to different neurotransmitters, and stuff that we 
don't yet understand.

>I am aware of *no* human-made
>networking system that scales beyond two nodes that consists entirely of
>the same type of object; there is *always* a mediator. Computers don't
>talk to computers, they talk to switches.

Which are themselves a kind of nirna.

>Fiber optic cables don't push
>data at all, there are mere a transmission medium. <wry>The axon, if
>you will.</wry>
>
>And, by the way, similarities between what and what, exactly? Is a
>fiber optic cable a nirna?

yes.

>Is a networked computer a nirna?

At one abstraction level, yes, at another it is of course a nirna ciste of 
its own.

>Is two cans and a piece of string a nirna?

The string is. The cans are if the system extends to include the talker 
and listener.

>Does that make a piece of string a nirna?

yes

>Is a phone switch a nirna?

yes

> Is a phone a nirna?

of a sort.

>Is a phone cable a nirna?

yes

>Is a pair of headphones a nirna? Is a loudspeaker a nirna?

of a sort

>Is an ssh connection a nirna?

?

>Is a mail reader a nirna?

Logically perhaps.

>Is yelling really loud a nirna?

It is an action, a signal, not the carrier of the signal.

You yelling because someone stomped on your foot, are potentially a neuron 
- the input is being transmitted to an output. But is it part of a system?

>Hey, talking is a an "information/control network
>connection", right? Talking is a nirna!

No. It is signal. The medium is the connection.

>We don't need tavla, we have nirna!

We need tavla because it focuses on the end points and not the medium, and 
refers to the kind of information being transmitted.

>Oh, I guess we don't need cusku either! Weee, isn't this fun!

cusku identifies the information being transmitted.

>Yes, some of that was hyperbole, but far from all of it.
>
>And you wonder why I'm concerned about polysemy in this case. Yeesh.

There is no polysemy. Polysemy in natural language usually comes about 
when words evolve in multiple directions and the original connection 
between them is lost or forgotten. Keepiong gismu broad in meaning and 
using lujvo to do the evolved meanings should prevent much polysemy.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org