| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:00 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3t1cuoFql1k6U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to
be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in
loose
and imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those
things that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to
many others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he
believes that if a version of English can be created in which words
have unambiguous meanings then God will be able to communicate with
us with no fear of misunderstanding. Of course if this language
does
not have a word for what God wants to say he'll have to revert to
metaphor leading to misunderstandings and disagreements all
round --
back to square zero.
Earlier on in the proceedings, it crossed my mind to wonder if he
was, in fact, looking for evidence to use _against_ Biblical
literalism. The Bible, that thought went, is quite obviously not a
pantheist text, so if one of its sentences could be shown
unequivocally to be pantheist in meaning it would be shown to be
self-contradictory. Then, again, it had seemed at the outset that he
was hoping to reconcile the Bible with some Hindu beliefs. Soon, of
course, he wandered into the "ISO lexicon" quagmire. By then, I too
had lost any clear sense of what his purpose in visiting us was; but
at least I knew I'd lost that clear sense, so my sanity, such as it
is, remains undamaged.
--
Mike.
Ephesians 1:10 |
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the earth;
even in him
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
nancy13g wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...] back to square zero.
Would this be the appropriate place to put one of those "Oy!" things?
|
Yes, unless any unnumbered beginning square is "zero" by default. (Who
sets the default, anyway, in things like that?)
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:05 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
In message <zwJaf.51$xE.41@dukeread08>, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net>
writes
| Quote: | What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English sentences)
one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount than $723.47.
|
Good point, sir.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:21 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Paul Wolff wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
|
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:42 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
In message <8D7bf.9698$Lv.7433@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, Maria Conlon
<maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> writes
| Quote: | Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Numbers aren't unambiguous, in human hands. Errors in spelling usually |
leave the word intelligible, while writing "meaning #743" when "347" was
intended leaves the reader hopelessly adrift.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message news:VwGCAtAckRbDFw$d@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | In message <8D7bf.9698$Lv.7433@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, Maria Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> writes
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Numbers aren't unambiguous, in human hands. Errors in spelling usually leave the word intelligible, while writing "meaning #743"
when "347" was intended leaves the reader hopelessly adrift.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
|
It was a typo, well duh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:31 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In message <8D7bf.9698$Lv.7433@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, Maria Conlon
maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> writes
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Numbers aren't unambiguous, in human hands. Errors in spelling usually
leave the word intelligible, while writing "meaning #743" when "347" was
intended leaves the reader hopelessly adrift.
|
We are getting so close to the old comedy-convention-numbered-jokes
jokes.
--
It's the way he says it -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
In message <279bf.157$xE.43@dukeread08>, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net>
writes
| Quote: |
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VwGCAtAckRbDFw$d@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
In message <8D7bf.9698$Lv.7433@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net>, Maria
Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> writes
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Numbers aren't unambiguous, in human hands. Errors in spelling
usually leave the word intelligible, while writing "meaning #743"
when "347" was intended leaves the reader hopelessly adrift.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
It was a typo, well duh.
That's my point. This grand scheme founders on typos. |
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
Anyone who has had experience with COLAs (cost of living adjustments)
is well aware that dollar figures are not immutable. The $727.43 of
1995 and the $727.43 of 2005 are not the same thing at all. That's
why you are constantly seeing figures in "constant dollars" as of some
given base year. Thus, for example, the $727.43 of 2005 may be
$610.53 (made up number) in 1995 dollars. Comparing one year against
another without adjusting the numbers leads to unsatisfactory
conclusions about economic activity and the worth of any given
monetary amount. I now earn in one year about eight times as many
dollars as my father earned in his best year ever. That doesn't mean
my earnings are worth eight times what he earned.
As long as you don't care about context or such minor inconveniences
as reality, it's easy enough to say that a given dollar figure equals
itself. But it's often misleading to the point of being a lie.
How do you enter that in your little lexicon? And how many
superscripts will you need?
|
<sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really understood
my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other
amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not the same*.
2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides,
if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's no reason to
limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for
instance?
3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers
are different?
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully comprehend
natural language.
|
[I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
be. Not that it matters.]
You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
"just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
(And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
that.) This is what you're going to patent?
You, sir, are either the most naive person in the world or insane.
Your choice.
--
Bob Lieblich
I know my choice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: |
Paul Wolff wrote:
Peter Olcott writes
What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
|
Anyone who has had experience with COLAs (cost of living adjustments)
is well aware that dollar figures are not immutable. The $727.43 of
1995 and the $727.43 of 2005 are not the same thing at all. That's
why you are constantly seeing figures in "constant dollars" as of some
given base year. Thus, for example, the $727.43 of 2005 may be
$610.53 (made up number) in 1995 dollars. Comparing one year against
another without adjusting the numbers leads to unsatisfactory
conclusions about economic activity and the worth of any given
monetary amount. I now earn in one year about eight times as many
dollars as my father earned in his best year ever. That doesn't mean
my earnings are worth eight times what he earned.
As long as you don't care about context or such minor inconveniences
as reality, it's easy enough to say that a given dollar figure equals
itself. But it's often misleading to the point of being a lie.
How do you enter that in your little lexicon? And how many
superscripts will you need?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who can't seem to stop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436D809A.419D3A17@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully comprehend
natural language.
[I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
be. Not that it matters.]
You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
"just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
(And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
that.) This is what you're going to patent?
|
I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
of the rest could be automated. There was another project that has
already encoded the set of common sense meanings. This project
lasted over a decade, and has been completed for at least five years.
| Quote: |
You, sir, are either the most naive person in the world or insane.
Your choice.
--
Bob Lieblich
I know my choice |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131253388.772579.184100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
of the rest could be automated.
On your showing here, it looks as though it will be a while yet before
this project "completes". The quotes are there because I believe that
such a project could never truly be completed (since language is always
being redefined).
|
I also have fully accounted for this. As soon as anyone fully understands
exactly how knowledge will be represented, the project will be completed.
I already have determined some of the basic requirements of this, and
how these requirements will be fulfilled.
| Quote: |
There was another project that has
already encoded the set of common sense meanings. This project
lasted over a decade, and has been completed for at least five years.
Then, by definition, it has failed (see above).
--
WH
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
|
Not so. Consider:
1. Many countries use the $ sign for their local currency. Without some
context, we cannot know which currency is implied.
2. Many countries use the comma to indicate the decimal place, and a
period/full-stop to indicate thousands. Whilst it is true that the
quoted figure only has two digits after the decimal-point, this could
be due to a typo. Context would clarify for us.
3. The figure may be current or historical. Context would tell us
which.
So, it could be that the figure means "Seven hundred and twenty seven
thousand, four hundred and thirty Hong Kong dollars in 1895" or it
could be that it means "Seven hundred and twenty seven US dollars and
forty three cents in 2005", or could it mean a wide range of other
things. Without context, we can only guess.
In short, as with words, so with numbers. We must have context in order
to extract meaning.
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
of the rest could be automated.
|
On your showing here, it looks as though it will be a while yet before
this project "completes". The quotes are there because I believe that
such a project could never truly be completed (since language is always
being redefined).
| Quote: | There was another project that has
already encoded the set of common sense meanings. This project
lasted over a decade, and has been completed for at least five years.
|
Then, by definition, it has failed (see above).
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in