From: The Low Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 31 1997 - 00:17:48 MST
On Jan 30, 9:10pm, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
} Why should the universal internal protocol be *English*? The simple act
} of translation would seem to require some sort of semantic encoding. If
} the semantic encoding is common - and this, note, is not a language at
Why isn't it a language?
} Whoa! We aren't talking transhumans here; transhumans would simply
} communicate *thought* directly without need for language. Telepathy, in
} a word. After all, (your) thought to English to (your friend's)
Many of my thoughts, especially the rigorous ones, are in English. At
any rate, I don't buy your thesis: thoughts won't magically jump from
one mind to another, unless they're borging, and whatever you use to
communicate complex ideas between discrete minds is language.
} While if we're dealing with fallible mortals, they might perfectly well
} choose to abandon the Rosetta stone in favor of automatic translators.
And these I really don't think are possible, not without implications.
Good linguistic translation is probably tantamount to AI. If there are
two faithful AIs between me and you handling communication, we're pretty
close to Singularity already.
} when a mechanical translator can effortlessly make it all so clear?
Right. _Not_ mechanical. Slave, maybe.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Be not a beauty proud or vain,
For mortal maid it will be your bane.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:06 MST