From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Apr  7 23:22:56 EDT 1992
Article 4789 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
References: <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar27.130652.23929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <1992Mar27.231937.14949@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 92 23:19:37 GMT

In article <1992Mar27.130652.23929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:
>In article <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

NR:
Machine languages have been around for a while, and if that were all that
were needed to make a machine intelligent we would not have these
interminable discussions on the CR and related topics.

OC:
You realize, of course, that by saying this you are already falling
into the trap I am avoiding. You can not make the statement about computers-
having-languages-and-not-necessarily-intelligent and at the same time
maintain that birds-have-a-remedial-language and are thus less intelligent.
The problem I am getting away from is our necessity to understand language
as having anything to do with intelligence.  Particularly from the
standard top-down approach.

PS:

If you define language as a means of communication and you say that this
form of communication occurs only among intelligent (whatever this term means)
entities, then language is defined in terms of intelligence.

On the other hand if you define intelligence by means of communication,
(and I suspect that this is what you are doing, if I understand right
your criticism to AI)
and in our case by means of language, then you still keep the dependency
in a reverse form.


CO REPLY:


  Ok, I don't think I made my self very clear; not to mention, I over
stated myself.  This is the view I maintain:

Intelligence is not wrapped up in language(like first-principle
theories tracing back to Socrates)  Further, the AI appraoch thinks
that if they can reprodcue the theories and the language, they have
reproduced the intelligence.  I dissent because intelligence is 
prior to language.  Now, I have maintained that language is dependent on 
intelligence as a genesis.  However, intelligence does not need language.
Further, language does not impact intelligence.  (Ie, knowing a theory
does not make you any smarter; however, being able to understand the
theory is a function of your intelligence.  A person who knows a theory
may be more "knowledgeable" but knowing the theory itself does not
make the person more "intelligent."  In this way, it appears that
language is dependent on intelligence.  When I wrote, "The problem I 
am getting away from is our necessity to understand language as having
anything to do with intelligence," I should have written "The problem 
I am getting away from is our necessity to understand language as having
anything to do with GENERATING intelligence."  So, in effect, 
language IS dependent on intelligence; not vice-versa. 

NR:
The most important aspect of human language is that it is a digital system.
In effect language has digitized humans.  

Is there any relevance with Marcuse's theories?

CO:
It hasn't digitized humans. It has, and here I am not sure that I fullly
commit, only digitizied their outputs.  Humans are quite capable of thinking
beyond the realms of language. You must let go of your hang-up on language.

PS:

I am not sure if thinking about something that you cannot express (with words, 
paintings, sounds, etc) has any meaning even to yourself. In other words I have 
difficulties to accept that you can think beyond the realms of ANY language.

CO REPLY:

I have been using 'thinking'
in terms of 'reacting,' 'working with,' 'appropriation,' of a creature
and an environment in a dynamic way.  Intuition is generally beyond that
of language, it expresses itself in language true, but it occurs without
language.  Intuition is a type of thinking. The prolem we run into
when trying to determine what 'thinking' and 'intelligence' mean comes
from our tendency to be too wrapped up in language.  Animals think,
we can not verify whether they have a language or not, but yet they think.
A cockroach thinks, interms of appropriation and reacting to its 
environment, yet it does not appear to have a language.  Further, if
we were to quantify, even qualify, thinking, we would be at great pains
to go beyond thinking of these things in terms of ourselves.  I think
from a strict phenomenological view, we could not determine intelligence
for any creature besides that of humans.  Ontically, however, biology
may produce a theory, like evolution et. al, that may be capable of
explaining what intelligence might be for other creatures.  I have 
not thought this stuff completely through as of yet.

OC:
Second, it is, as you have agreed,
a technology.  Third, the intelligence comes before the language.
Bickerton maintains that language came before the intelligence.

PS:
If technology (do you mean the ancient greek 'texvn'?)
is a result of intelligence and language comes before intelligence,
then I do not see on what wayis the language a technology.

CO REPLY:

  Look again at the above paragraph, I wrote, "intelligence comes before
the language" not the reverse.  This should clarify your confusion.
I stated that Bickerton maintains that language came before the intelligence;
this is the view I am reacting against.

>Philip Santas

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


