```Could someone help me ?
I don't know anything about computers and maths and I wonder how artificial language softwares deal with experience beyond information. I try to explain what I mean (don't laugh at me, I try my best once again ;-) :
I understand that when making a database you identify items in terms of reciprocal proximity : an owl is an animal, bird, of prey, nocturnal, etc. But doing so you deal only with information, not experience. I guess that experience is not a cluster of pieces of information. Maybe experience lingers in your brain as the configuration of all links between available pieces of information. If such link is only a pulsed distance between pieces of information then I can imagine you could measure it to one distal standard and retrieve anything at a given adddress. But I figure out that to know whether you need to go for one piece of information, you would first need to measure its distance from *all* other available pieces of information in your brain according to all their own, different, respective distal standards. Since there are as many standards as pieces of information, there would be no standard. I mean : a piece of information is not an information anymore when it's a standa!
!
!
rd to measure all other pieces of information and vice versa. This is why I can't get how you can make an artificial language based on *predicate*. Let's take Lojban (sorry : I set aside xmene, bridi, etc. for a while although I respect them all right). Lojban claims that its predicates encompass all possible arguments thanks to prepositions. In other words, no argument is *closer* to the predicate than another. In other words, the predicate is the *attribute* both of all possible arguments and of none. In other words, you will never be able to measure any distance whatsoever from an argument to a predicate and you will only classify items by measuring frequency of occurence of clusters. But how do you know there is a cluster of items if you can't tell distances between them ? Is it because a clause comprises a definite number of them around a predicate linked thereto by affixes such as *from*, *towards*, *with*, *via*, which are precisely other *predicates* whatever you call !
!
!
them (affixes, prepositions, etc.) ? But I figure out a predicate is not an argument nor a link between arguments but a preset cluster of arguments which in turn are predicates to each other. So how many arguments do you get in the cluster around the predicate now ? My answer would be : all core arguments beside the predicate plus all arguments within the predicate plus all arguments within the *prepositions*. Like white light is all lights so red light is also white. And how do you identify the arguments implied within a predicate ? This should depend on which argument you take as a standard. The trouble is then that the one you pick as standard is not an information anymore. So which one isn't an information ? Does the most irrelevant information become the standard (or reversely) ?
I mean : does the computer handling an artificial language only analyse information according to a set of standards or also speak ? Thanks for putting this down and giving me tangible clues.
Mathias

-----
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
```