Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry
From: terry@wsccs.UUCP (Every system needs one)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Human-human communication
Summary: Language deficiencies
Message-ID: <574@wsccs.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 88 05:01:21 GMT
References: <32403@linus.UUCP> <238@proxftl.UUCP> <839@netxcom.UUCP>
Lines: 83

In article <238@proxftl.UUCP> Tom Holroyd writes:
>Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-)

In article <839@netxcom.UUCP>, Sylvia Dutcher writes:
> Describe a complex mathematical formula, without writing it down.

	"The Schrodinger Wave Equation" (if this is inadequate, I
	can tell you how to write it down).

> Describe the unusual mannerisims of a friend, without demonstrating them.

	"He sniffs his pencil and groans a lot while scratching the stump of
	 his left arm.  You can't miss him." (this is simply dependant on
	 the amount of detail one is to put into a verbal description).

> When you get in a heated discussion, do you gesture with your hands and
> body?

	This is "body language" (the primary definition of language is an
	abstract method of describing information.  Body language, although
	not as concise [in most cases], qualifies).

> We can express just about anything with language, but is the listener
> receiving exactly what we are sending?

Of course not, but don't take it to the extreme of phenomenology, or we
will simply refuse to believe you exist and ignore any further statements :-).
True phenomenologists are useless, precisely for this reason.  You can't talk
to them or exchange information in a meaningful fashion.

> Even the same word, with the
> same definition, can mean different things to different people, or in 
> different contexts.

	I waited until after this statement to follow the last one up:

> Look out your window and describe the view to someone who's been blind
> since birth.

	Since we do not share contexts, this is not possible.  They would
understand my referrents less than I would understand Japaneese; after all,
having watched "Shogun", I do have SOME referents ;-).  The entire concept
pre-supposes some referents.  I assume that it would be possible to use a
direct-brain-visual-center stimulation of some kind to demonstrate the
concepts of "color" and "light", but more likely you would simply demonstrate
the concepts of "electro-shock therapy" and "cauterization" given current
technological capabilities... but then you would have a referent and could,
therefore, provide a description.  Adequacy of the description is a matter
of opinion, after that.  Admittedly, a description is probably less adequate
to the describee, but give us 50 years; besides, you (hopefully) do not go into
some kind of a self-induced trance when something is described to you, and
actually believe you "see" what is described.  A description is not the same
thing as the item being described; it is a paraphrase.  Quality is obviously
dependant on who/what is doing the paraphrasing.  You have to admit that the
television (a machine) can better describe a scene than I can (if you don't,
I'll simply do a worse and worse job until you do ;-).

	This entire thread is devolving into "why AI is impossible so we can
justify cutting all funding rather than reforming the welfare system or building
fewer useless piles of paper instead".

	Everyone seems to be missing the point that the reason AI hasn't
got any shining results for you to touch is that, as soon as something is
useful/marketable/sellable (usually 3 mutually exclusive traits), it gets
renamed so that it isn't AI any more.  This happened with databases, it
happened with character recognition (it's now called "optical scanning"),
and seems to be trying to happen with natural language processing and
knowledge-based expert systems.  Most modern computer instruction technology
is the result of original work in the 50's and 60's by cognitive psychologists.
This doesn't mean you want one (a psychologist) running, maintaining, or
administering your computer facilities; it simply means that AI has been
proven to be a useful item to throw money at.  Hell, most compiler technology
today is a result of techniques learned exploring possibilities in AI.

	Whether or not current languages can do what needs to be done is
an open question, and is therefore disputed.  I see nothing in any previous
arguments by anyone that suggest that the concept of language as a method of
description is flawed.  It is idiotic to make assumptions based on the
likelyhood of possible future events until some form of social engineering can
make 100% accurate predicitions and produce duplicable results with accuracy.
Stating that machines can not produce behavior which is comparable with human
behavior is as idiotic as most religious dogma.

				terry@wsccs