Print

Print


Zeno wrote:
 
> There is a person on this list who
 
Uh-oh. May I distract you with a cool ontological URL?
http://www.let.uva.nl/~ewn/corebcs/topont.htm
 
> Arguments have been offered on the one hand that technology has always
> shaped our actions, and on the other hand that machines should do what
> we want them to and not the other way around.  Obviously both of these
> are true.
 
Yes.
 
> Computers are
> still expensive, and instead of using our language faculties to
> operate them, we must click on them.
 
Intel and others are pushing speech recognition, right now.
Apple tried it out in the late 1980's, and it works.
Better than point-and-shoot? Yes. Well, mostly. Often.
 
> If I am driving along the road with a companion
 
Now context rears its ugly heads ...
 
> The languages centers of the human brain are always going to provide
> us with plenty of ambiguity, emotions, and societal influence in
> everything we say and everything we hear.
 
That's the use of the tool, not the tool (language) itself.
 
> Learning a more easily
> parsible language to make the computer's job of constructing a parse
> tree will not help it with the semantic interpretation and real-world
> knowledge representation.
 
It should be the trivial first step.
Our sloppy natlangs make it unreasonably difficult.
They confuse us in our thought, also.
(Sapir-Whorf arise from their graves.)
 
> And by the time computers can understand
> our societal standards, ambiguity, conflict, and emotions, computers
> will no longer need parse trees, and will probably not need us.
 
Right, because the process of understanding will result
in revolutionizing everything.
 
> Computer-readability is a non-issue in selecting an auxiliary
> language.  We are not Vulcans, I say!
 
Speak for yourself, I'm on *their* side.