On 26/10/15 12:06, Mark Waddingham wrote:
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)
No: that is not what is meant. What is meant by the assertion 'computers
do not work in the same way as human brains' is that computers can only
work in whole numbers (digitally), while brains work in a quite
different way. I ma quite sure that computers are capable of solving a
greater set of problems than human brains in certain fairly clearly
defined areas, and human brains are far better at solving problems in
quite different areas.
Stating that the assertion '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" is rather like using
Marxist terminology to define how Market systems work, when there are
quite different ways of describing them that are equally, or possibly
more, valid. This is defining the capabilities of the human mind in a
totally mechanistic framework that ultimately is how computers are defined.
To illustrate this point think about yourself smelling a flower.
A computer smelling a flower would be capable of telling you all the
component chemicals that make up its aroma, and possibly the DNA
structure of the flower.
When I smell a flower my interpretation of its smell will be heavily
affected by the fact that I first smelt a flower of that type at
Drumbreddan bay
https://www.google.bg/maps/place/Drumbreddan+Bay,+United+Kingdom/@54.7501439,-5.0087908,4792m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x486233eae64a548d:0x906d7bbd8f5d9c93?hl=en
And, should you be in the area, well worth a day with a picnic!
in 1977 while lying on the grass on a lovely sunny day in late August,
having had a swim. It will also be affected by the fact that I had had a
horrible adolescent set-to with my Mum about 30 minutes earlier.
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.
That is also true.
However, I do think we can say, quite safely, "the human brain is not a
Turing Machine but something else."
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
Richmond.
_______________________________________________
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
