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

Robert B Wilson wrote:

>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.
>
Well, then you didn't do it properly. I meant you had to succeed.

>>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.
>
Re-read what I've said. I didn't define inspiration like that. I said
you would have to define inspiration like that to require art to be
inspired to be great.

>Of course the universe can't create!  the universe hasn't created
>anything!  God (a non-biological being) created all those things.
>
*cough* You're treading on dangerous ground. This is definitely not the
place. Debates like this would require much more of a knowledge of each
other's cultures. At any rate, I never meant to exclude the possiblity
of gods existence; I hoped people who believed in a creatorgod would
read 'universe' as [creatorgod]. Also, some of this was aimed at
specifically Christophe. I've somehow got it into my head that he was
atheist or agnostic (if you're not, my apologies).

> is
>*your* definition of "create" so limited that only normal
>three-dimensional beings who are constrained by time can create?
>
My definition of 'create' is so limited that only things which exist can
create. This says nothing about whether god, or any other
non-three-dimensional beings who aren't constrained by time, can create,
as it says nothing about the existence of said beings. (It also says
nothing about whether all things which exist can create, merely that
things that can create will be found exclusively within the category of
things which exist.)

>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?
>
Hardly what I suggested. I never said opinions were automatically
correct. If someone held an opinion, disproving the content doesn't
alter whether or not they held the opinion.


But if you can find me any known facts that show that speech-to-text has
less to do with creation than sight to do with painting, I'd be most
happy to read it.

>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?
>
>
Not relevant.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

"Dealing with failure is easy: Work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle:
You've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve."

- Alan Perlis