You say it yourself the main point here is *humans* are quite happy with
an *imperfect* world... BTW. I wouldn't call the process of decoding the
meaning of some words a computation at all, since a computation is in my
view something you can perfectly describe by a Turing machine and
this certainly isn't possible due to the simple fact that
there isn't something like a perfect understanding at all. Or I'm just
missing
something? Please give me the (formal!) definition of understanding...
Does the ticket automata equipped with speed recognition really
understand? I doubt it. Does the kernel understand if I'm telling him:
~# /sbin/shutdown -now
Certainly NOT! Otherwise he would try to resist/defend himself or at
least he
would be offended unless You tell him instead:
~# /sbin/shutdown -now -please
> Human language just *isn't* perfectly logical: a lot of the
> information is conveyed by choice of words, connotations, inflection
> , context and innuendo. This part of the information contents is
> mostly fuzzy and often ambiguous.
Yeep and there the requested credibility comes once again. "Fuzzy" is
the
phrase one should be looking for. If you are just looking for evidence
and no proof,
here it comes: Look at babelfish at altavista and enjoy :-). And of
course
most of the time there is no information contained in human words at
all.
(Quite common simple example: "I love you").
And certainly one quite important connotation which got lost in my last
post
was the big grin in my face during the writing of it :-))). I was just
amuesed by
the "AI-complete" and not *THAT* serious about it...
Marcin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/