In article ,
 William Morse  wrote:

> "Malcolm"  wrote in
> news:ccv9vt$171r$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
> 
> > 
> > "Michael Ragland"  wrote
> >>
> >> This is a "very" long article which traces the
history of math and
> >> argues it is largely responsible for current alienation in
> >> civilization and from our human nature. Since
"numbers" and math are
> >> often used on s.b.e. I was curious to see what other posters thought
> >> of the thesis. I don't agree with everything the author says and he
> >> did seem a little touched but at the same time I think he presents
> >> his case. 
> >>
> > I don't think most of the article is really topical (yes, maths did
> > evolve and continues to evolve, but we are interested in biological
> > evolution). One topical point he makes is that hunter-gatherers had
> > little use for number. However every language has some number terms,
> > and it would be interesting to see what is the lowest that each naming
> > system goes up to. English peters out in the trillions (1000 billion),
> > though of course we have technical terms that go much beyond that.
> 
> I have seen a study of counting terms across languages. Unfortunately I 
> can't remember the source, but the lowest named number as I recall is 
> actually quite low in a number of languages - like less than twenty.
> 
>  
> > It is amazing and philosophically interesting that human are capable
> > of doing mathematics, though we do it very inefficiently. For instance
> > a long division can be completed by a machine costing a few dollars in
> > microseconds, whilst for humans it is a test of intelligence, and
> > steadily drilled at primary school.
>  
> > They conclude
> > "When the world and its thought (Levi-Strauss and Chomsky come
> > immediately to mind) reach a condition that is increasingly
> > mathematized and empty (where computers are widely touted as capable
> > of feelings and even of life itself), the beginnings of this bleak
> > journey, including the origins of the number concept, demand
> > comprehension.  It may be that this inquiry is essential to save us
> > and our humanness." 
>  
> > I think this is plain wrong. Non-computer programmers enjoy science
> > fiction about intelligent robots because they don't understand the
> > problems involved. There is no consensus amongst though inthe know
> > about whether genuine AI is inherently possible or not, but everyone
> > agrees that we don't even know how to set about building something
> > like R2D2. 
> 
> 
> I agree. Many people think computers are intelligent because they can do 
> difficult numerical problems. They are apparently unaware that even with 
> millions of hours of programming on the fastest computers available, 
> computers cannot begin to handle language, while even severely retarded 
> humans can converse. 

*
"Computers cannot begin to handle language"?

You are woefully out of date.  There has been a lot of research over 
the past 20 or 30 years on natural language understanding.  You 
should read up.  Here are a few suggestions:

http://wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2004/06/natural_languag.htm
l

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805303340/104-7523691-
9994340?v=glance

http://mbi.dkfz-heidelberg.de/helios/doc/nlp/Baud93b.html

These are three (of thousands) of sites that result when you Google 
["language understanding" computer]

I have seen demonstrations of laboratory systems that first, 
recognize spoken speech, then parse the sentences and extract 
meaning.  The most successful are 'restricted domain' query systems.  
In other words, they are not claimed to work with all speech and all 
language.

For example there is a medical data base for cardiology and 
cardiologists.  If you ask, "How's the weather in Honolulu?" you are 
not likely to be understood.

If what you are saying is that you can think up clever sentences 
that will fool the system, you are right.

earle
*

-- 
              __
           __/\_\
          /\_\/_/ 
          \/_/\_\     earle
             \/_/     jones
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/19/04 6:06:05 AM