Argument by pun is fun, but gets you no ware, artificial or know.
Hey, even you acknowledged its pun-ness factor.

BTW wolf k., there is something called “future perfect tense”.

Not in English. In English it's a mode. There are only two tenses in
English, both of them used to express indefinite time most of the time
(as every sentence in this paragraph does.) In English we use compound
verb phrases and modals to express most time relationships.

I quote from a published dictionary:
future perfect --
2. the future perfect tense

(Wolf k. spending way too much time with those “knowledgeable”
linguists? Hey didn’t they come up with that Esperanto; you know, the
one you surveyed as “just a mish-mash of European languages”? Didn’t
they try to target the scientific community? And yes, yes, those same
linguists have been tampering with the grade-school books as well?

This is a bit of an over reaction, but:

Well golly. It may seem that electrical engineers (this is in
sci.electronics.design) are not worthy to discuss your "thing".

While I am aware of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, I did not find it all
that relevant to this discussion yet. In some ways I find the
Korzybski Structural Differential more useful.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:18:07 -0400, Wolf K <wekirch at (no spam) sympatico.ca
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
[snip my lengthy reply to Mikus]
This is a bit of an over reaction, but:

Well golly. It may seem that electrical engineers (this is in
sci.electronics.design) are not worthy to discuss your "thing".

While I am aware of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, I did not find it all
that relevant to this discussion yet. In some ways I find the
Korzybski Structural Differential more useful.
Sorry if I gave that impression. Anybody can discuss anything. But the
value of the opinions depends on what you know. I've come to agree with
Will Rogers: "It ain't what you know, but what you know that ain't so,
that causes the trouble." I tried to correct some misconceptions about
English, which is difficult to do for an audience of native English
speakers, largely because English grammar as taught in schools is
abysmally bad.

Thing is, everybody thinks they know all they need to know about
language, because after all we all speak it, right? I thought so too,
until I had to teach a course on the history and grammar of English.
(Teachers often learn more than their students... ) I'm also
bi-lingual English-German, and can get along in French and Spanish.
Knowing more than one language makes you aware of how little you
understand your own. Highly recommended.

I was a great fan of Korzybski back in the 50s/60s, but have forgotten
almost everything about what he said. So I'll say nothing. ;-)

Talk to you again some time.

Cheers,
wolf k.

Pompous assism? I think so

...Jim Thompson

JosephKK wrote:
[snip my lengthy reply to Mikus]
This is a bit of an over reaction, but:

Well golly. It may seem that electrical engineers (this is in
sci.electronics.design) are not worthy to discuss your "thing".

While I am aware of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, I did not find it all
that relevant to this discussion yet. In some ways I find the
Korzybski Structural Differential more useful.

Sorry if I gave that impression. Anybody can discuss anything.

But the
value of the opinions depends on what you know. I've come to agree with
Will Rogers: "It ain't what you know, but what you know that ain't so,
that causes the trouble."

I tried to correct some misconceptions about
English, which is difficult to do for an audience of native English
speakers, largely because English grammar as taught in schools is
abysmally bad.

Thing is, everybody thinks they know all they need to know about
language, because after all we all speak it, right? I thought so too,
until I had to teach a course on the history and grammar of English.
(Teachers often learn more than their students... ) I'm also
bi-lingual English-German, and can get along in French and Spanish.
Knowing more than one language makes you aware of how little you
understand your own. Highly recommended.

I was a great fan of Korzybski back in the 50s/60s, but have forgotten
almost everything about what he said. So I'll say nothing. ;-)

Talk to you again some time.

Cheers,
wolf k.

The blank slate starts with innate low level primitive
behaviors which are combined in new ways to create
behaviors that did not exist in the machine before
they were learned.

I think AI will be solved by building a reinforcement
trained recurrent temporal reaction machine. It does
have to start with some set of initial weights that
defines how it reacts, but those weights are not set
to a specific value to achieve a specific behavior
- they are effectively random numbers producing random
behavior. What such a machine knows nothing about at
"birth" is the _value_ of any behavior. It has no clue
which behaviors are more valuable (are likely to produce
more rewards) than any other behavior. That is what
such a machine goes about learning though experience -
the value of one reaction vs another.

What we have to code, looks nothing like what we describe
with all this talk about using knowledge to reason with.
What we have to code, is a reinforcement trained, real
time, temporal, distributed, associative memory like
reaction system.

What happened to cybernetics?

--
Rich