On 2015-10-24 21:00, Richmond wrote:
Well, what to one person is 'natural language' may not be to another:
and a "10,000 different, often incompatible and sometimes confusing,
custom syntax options" does seem to sum that problem up fairly
effectively.
Indeed - what is 'natural' to me is different to others. However,
language is about communication between individuals and groups. Each
develops their own idea of 'naturality' in that context.
I have to say that what people do in the privacy of their own homes and
with friends is entirely up to them and generally of little interest to
me - if they wish to spend a great deal of time developing weird and
wonderful ways of setting the rect of a button then, you know what, they
can go 'knock themselves out' and have as much fun as they can possibly
have with such an endevaour (I certainly won't be spending any time
doing so).
However, when 'these' people have to interact with others outside of
such small groups, then they will find that *unless* their new approach
fits entirely within the constraints of the group they are proffering it
to and is demonstrably 'better' or gives more benefits than the existing
one, then they will most likely find limited support.
It is an unreachable ideal for the plain and simple reason that
computers do not work in the
same way as human brains.
Interesting - I must confess I'm not quite up to date with the latest
frontier research on that subject but certainly last time I did dig into
it that was still an unanswered question.
If you are absolutely sure about your assertion and have a proof for it
then I suggest you write up a paper right now and submit it for peer
review in an appropriate academic journal - you would quickly find
yourself probably being inline for a sizeable prize or two, and
international renown (and indeed probably have a whole array of job
offers at many prestigious academic and research institutions around the
world).
(Just for the sake of others, I should explain - asserting that
'computers do not work in the same way as human brains' means that the
human brain is fundamentally capable of solving a greater set of
problems than modern computers - i.e. the human brain is not a Turing
Machine but something more)
Of course, whilst intellectually interesting, the reality is that
computers have gotten pretty darn good (and continue to get better) at
approximating the outward effects of the human brain in every increasing
areas; which means whether or not their computational models are
equivalent or not is really not that relevant on a day-to-day basis.
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
