jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/16/90)
schwuchow@uniol.UUCP (Michael Schwuchow) writes: > ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: > > >Rather than an argument, I will proffer an example of such a phenomenon. > >From time to time, during human history, writings from long-extinct > >civilisations have been found (for example Mayan codices, Runes or Egyptian > >hieroglyphics). All the information that the translators had to work with > >were the rules they could deduce from the information. With just this > >syntactic knowledge, they deduced the semantic content. Isn't this exactly > >what Searle says cannot be done? Code-breakers (for example Turing :-) must > >have to do a similar task. > > >Ian Finch > >--------- > > IMHO the code-breaking of Mayan codices, Egyption hieroglyphics and so on > is not only based on syntactic knowledge, but on known semantics too. As you yourself state, not from known semantics, but from assumed semantics. In other words, you are willing to guess at Egyptian translations being correct simply because you assume that Egyptians thought similarly to modern day humans, as you go on to state. > I will specify this a bit: > The Mayas, the Egyptians are humans too. So you can suppose about what they > had written. Their culture is not totally lost, but relicts were traduced. > So you can fix some words like king, duke ,servant, slave; sun, water, rain, > moon, season; build, fight, govern; saw, grow, harvest, ... relatively > easy, because you can suppose, what a text could mean. Sometimes the words > are even pictures, which show, what they mean. Assuming that their symbolism is the same as yours. However, symbolism is changing all the time. For example, if you saw a painting of a man wearing a swastika pendant on a chain and say a skirt, or some such, would you assume that he was a Nazi? That is the present day assumption that goes along with that particular symbol. However, the swastika used to symbolize good luck, one of the contributing factors to Hitler's having chosen it as the symbol for his new regime. > Suppose you get a message from extraterrestrian non-human intelligent > beeings. Some information transmitted in an unusual form. I think we could > not translate it by the syntax. A translation would suppose, that there are > parts included like > }Hey you out there! Are you intelligent too? Would you like to send letters? > }Send them to adress ... > And it might be, that there is a translation possible, that includes the > information of these statements. But how should we know, we are right?? You can never be 100% sure of anything - Heisenberg showed us this. The more sure you are of one facet of something, the less accurate your grasp on other facets or other things. You don't know that the translations of the heiroglyphics are correct, yet you don't seem to let this keep you up at nights. > And what would you suppose they think about us, if we send them back some > chinese poems? How would they translate them? How would they know that they were Chinese poems? How could they be SURE? How will they ever sleep? -:-) <- me, sideways > thinking (at least i think so) undoing myself > Micha iain
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/16/90)
excuse me, but i think that this has been missent. I apologize if this is the case. - iain
gordon@photon.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) (01/16/90)
In article <IZgfAce00W0TI8fVok@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: ]schwuchow@uniol.UUCP (Michael Schwuchow) writes: ]> ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: ]> ]> >Rather than an argument, I will proffer an example of such a phenomenon. ]> >From time to time, during human history, writings from long-extinct ]> >civilisations have been found (for example Mayan codices, Runes or Egyptian ]> >hieroglyphics). All the information that the translators had to work with --------------------------------------------------------- ]> >were the rules they could deduce from the information. With just this ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ]> >syntactic knowledge, they deduced the semantic content. Isn't this exactly ------------------------------------------------------ ]> >what Searle says cannot be done? Code-breakers (for example Turing :-) must ]> >have to do a similar task. Not true. The breakthrough in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics came with the discovery of the famous Rosetta (sp?) stone, which had text in 3 different languages, two of them being Egyptian and ancient Greek.
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/17/90)
gordon@photon.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) writes: > In article <IZgfAce00W0TI8fVok@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > ]schwuchow@uniol.UUCP (Michael Schwuchow) writes: > ]> ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: > ]> > ]> >Rather than an argument, I will proffer an example of such a phenomenon. > ]> >From time to time, during human history, writings from long-extinct > ]> >civilisations have been found (for example Mayan codices, Runes or Egyptian > ]> >hieroglyphics). All the information that the translators had to work with > --------------------------------------------------------- > ]> >were the rules they could deduce from the information. With just this > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ]> >syntactic knowledge, they deduced the semantic content. Isn't this exactly > ------------------------------------------------------ > ]> >what Searle says cannot be done? Code-breakers (for example Turing :-) must > ]> >have to do a similar task. > > Not true. The breakthrough in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics came with > the discovery of the famous Rosetta (sp?) stone, which had text in 3 different > languages, two of them being Egyptian and ancient Greek. easy on the attribution lines....i didn't get quoted once! The Rosetta Stone was quite a find - assuming that it was correct. The problem that arises from using Keys like the Rosetta stone is that it might have been a flawed attempt to uncode Egytpian heiroghlyphics. Of course, we all accept that it is correct (enough) to establish a basis from which we can do some real decoding. However, we are all still viewing this from the assumption that the Egyptians thought similarly to us and our ancestors. Thus we judge the results of our translations according to our own standards and claim that we understand ancient Egypt and it's languages. The rise in different religions the world over can (according to some) be attributed to the fact that people assumed that others thought (or should think) similarly to them. Some contend that all religious systems are the same - merely expressing the same ideas in differing ways. Aleister Crowley wrote a book called 777 which demonstrates the conversions that are necessary to translate from one mystical system (such as Egypts) to another (such as the Greeks). - iain