Re: Real Conlangs Here, Made-to-Order!

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:59:31 +1000 Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>
writes:
> As has been mentioned, you speak a language. I understand that you
> have
> a language gene. That certainly helps. Program a computer to have a
> means of communication and in the absense of one, it'll make one too.
i programmed a computer to send data to and receive data from another
computer without giving it a means of communication... it didn't work.

> No, the essence of creation is making something new that wasn't there
> before. Art doesn't need to be inspired to be great. Well, maybe it
> does, but that requires another definition of inspiration like an
> 'internal source; a combination of memories, experiences and
> thoughts',
> which is very easy to program (no, I haven't done that, and I don't
> know
> enough of any programming language to do it, but I could outline the
> idea).
apparently you don't know what inspiration is, then.  inspiration is not
internal.  if inspiration were "an 'internal source; a combination of
memories, experiences and thoughts'", then you would have to say that a
great majority of people who have used the word in the past used it
incorrectly.  you can't just change the definition of a word and then
expect everyone to agree with you, especially when the current definition
of the word has been proven to work through many years of use.

> Have you defined creation to make it impossible for a non-sentient
> and
> non-biological being to create?
of course not.  a non-sentient, non-biological being can create, but it
is impossible for a non-intelligent being to create.

> I'm not sure I see the cause and affect. The universe, I would say,
> can't comprehend. It can't even know! Yet take a look at yourself;
> take
> a look at the Australian bush; take a look at the clouds of Jupiter
> or
> the sky at night.
of course the universe can't create!  the universe hasn't created
anything!  God (a non-biological being) created all those things.  is
*your* definition of "create" so limited that only normal
three-dimensional beings who are constrained by time can create?
also, a minor nitpick: the universe as an object does not exist. it only
exists as a concept, created by humans.  therefore, the universe,
therefore, cannot create anything, because a non-existent entity cannot
create.

> Opinions don't need to be proved. To prove it, I'd need knowledge and
> equipment I can only dream of.
what if the opinion in question contradicts known fact?  then should we
just say that your opinion doesn't need to be proved, and accept it as
true in spite of the known fact?

> You said things were impossible, but with no way to even hint at that
> other than lack of present ability. Is something only possible if it
> exists? Then the universe must be all the more amazing as it morphs
> to
> encompass even more concepts and objects!
is it possible to program a computer to simulate the universe in real
time?  said computer would have to simulate itself... would that be
impossible?

> Tristan                  <kesuari@...>
--
Robert Wilson (aka kuvazokad, eltirno, edeí...)
http://www.kuvazokad.tk/ -- http://kuvazokad.free.fr/
vkky vnkynvj vknyknj ykkv knvy?  karkalone kontoko?  kinsi rorotan kinsa
nadas?  baitta ke farzaiyai?  qxracc pqqattiircx iia kxqqhwiiallccre?
spreken þu viserdya? pake biru ka pa rede?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M/O d-(---)  s: a18 C++$ UL++++>$ P+>++ L+(++)>++++ E--- W++(+++) N
o? K--- w+(--) O?> M-- V? PS PE+ Y+(++) PGP t+(*) 5-- X+++ R- tv b+++ DI+
D--- G++++ e h! r-- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Reply