From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Apr  7 23:22:28 EDT 1992
Article 4739 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.134711.10708@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Mar25.080515.20086@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 13:47:11 GMT
Lines: 152

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:
>>
>>In article <1992Mar25.080515.20086@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>  Language is very important.  But it is far from the whole story.
>  It sure is the whole story.  I am, at this time, disregarding connectionist

>>  Chimpanzees are highly intelligent animals, although they do not have
>>anything we would consider language.  On the other hand, songbirds seem
>>substantially less intelligent, but they do possess some kind of language.
>>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.

> 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.

  Of course I can make such a statement.  As I already said, language is
far from the whole story, so there is no contradiction here.  I did not
claim that a bird's intelligence problem is purely a lack of adequate
language; only that the inadequate analog language does not enhance
intelligence the same way that digital language enhances human
intelligence.

>The problem I am getting away from is our necessity to understand language
>as having anything to do with intelligence.  Particularly from the

 Please make up your mind.  You stated (above) that language IS the whole
story, and now you want to get away from language having anything to do
with intelligence.  Which is it to be?

>>  The most important aspect of human language is that it is a digital system.
>>In effect language has digitized humans.  Compare consumer electronics of the
>>'60s with comsumer electronics today.  The differences are enormous, and they
>>are almost entirely a consequence of the transformation from analog electronics
>>to digital electronics.  The difference between the chimpanzee and man is
>>even more enormous, and it too is the result of digital technology, in this
>>case the digital technology of human language.

> 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.

 Sure, thought is possible without language.  But such non-linguistic thought
is quite limited in comparison to thought using language.  My assertion
"language has digitized humans" was an overstatement, which I acknowledged
at the time by prefixing it with "in effect".  But the effects of the digital
technology of language extend much further than to merely a digital output.

>> Songbird language appears to be an analog language, and therefore does not
>>offer the benefits of digital human language.

> Ok, now you have lost me.  I see no reason why a songbird should have
>an analog language and humans have a digital one by definition.  Please
>elaborate.

 Perhaps the best explanation is by analogy.  Consider long distance 'phone
calls several years ago.  The signal weakens over distance, so the 'phone
company must provide repeaters.  These repeaters amplify the signal.  But
in doing so they introduce noise and distortion, slightly degrading the
signal.  The accumulated effect of the noise and degradation over a long
distance line can be quite noticeable, and sometime make the conversation
difficult.  Today much long distance traffic is digitized.  You still
need repeaters.  But the repeaters no longer amplify the signal.  Instead
they recognize its digits and recreate the signal.  The signal leaving the
repeater is now of higher quality than the signal entering the repeater,
which is quite a change from the signal degrading that occurs with analog
circuits.

 Human language is very much like that.  When we hear a spoken phrase we
recognize it and recreate it.  There is no cumulative degradation.  This
is possible because language is composed of phonemes which essentially
constitute the digits.  And it is a crucial property.  If language were
not digital, and were thus subject to degradation, we would probably be
limited to a vocabulary of at most a few hundred words.

>>>    A.) Novice - Needs precise rules and definitions to 
>>>    understand the new field.  Such as the fundamentals of 
>>
>>  Not necessarily true.  It tends to be true in many of the fields we
>>consider most important, perhaps because our culture biases us toward this
>>view.  But precise rules and definitions are probably much less important to
>>an expert musician or an expert basketball player.

>  Ok, this is a gradual learning scale.  It starts at A and moves to E.
>An expert musician will have ALWAYS gone through A either by learning by
>instruction or self-teaching.  S/he may forget this stuff later on, but
>when s/he starts s/he will always go through this stage.

 But my point was that the rules for music are relatively simple, and are
of minor importance.  They have little or anything to do with the expertise
which comes from the coordination and the musical sensitivity derived from
intense practice.

>>The underlying analog recognition system still requires some form of
>>calculation, but it is not the type of calculation that would be used
>>in formal deductions.

>Yes, but it is 'formal deductions' that we are talking about here.
>Remember Socrates, this all rests on Socrates.

 If your definition of intelligence is limited to formal deductions, you
have a very limited view.  Please note that there are already some quite
good computer automated theorem provers which do this.  Most people who
have seen these theorem provers at work are left with the strong
feeling that there is something missing, and that intelligence requires
much more.

>>>    If we take Dreyfus's argumentation above to be acceptable 
>>>and if we think purely in terms of Heidegger, it appears that 
>>>language itself becomes a technology.  From the technological 
>>
>>  Right.  But the crucial point is that it is not just a technology,
>>but that it is digital technology.
>>
>>  It is not entirely certain whether the development of digital language
>>(the digits are the phonemes) is certain.  It could well be that some
>>cultures could have developed with purely analog languages.  But such
>>cultures would be at such a great disadvantage they would be expected
>>to die out once they come into competition with cultures with a digital

>Ok, so this is why you think language is digital.  It isn't digital,
>you are just applying a digital analysis to it.  Even an analog meter
>can be thought of in digital terms.(ie, it is here NOT there).

  No.  Language really is digital.  Take your analog volt meter.  No matter
how hard you stare at it, you will have trouble getting more than two to
three digits of precision from it.  But, unlike analog technology, digital
technlogy allows precision to be arbitrarily extended.  And language has
this same property.  If we think it too limiting to talk about a forest,
we can coin words for trees.  If we need still more precision, we coin
words for tree trunks and branches.  For more we add words for leaves.
Next we add words for leaflets; next veins and stomata within the leaves.
In principle we can extend precision arbitrarily.

> First, language is not digital.  Second, it is, as you have agreed,

 I reiterate that language is indeed digital.  I have explained this
above in two different ways.  Language is resistant to degradation,
as is digital technology;  analog technology is not resistant to
signal degradation.  Language has an arbitrarily extensible precision
of representation, as has digital technology;  with analog 
technology the precision is limited by the physical properties of the
representation.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


