[ExI] all we are is just llms
gsantostasi at gmail.com
Sat Apr 22 23:33:17 UTC 2023
*The statement "referents are made of language" is simply false on the
definition of referent*
Which definition? The linguist one?
Linguistics is obsolete, in particular at the theoretical level. It is a
humanity discipline that tries to make sense of language with tools that
are not adequate. In other words, is not a science. It is worst than
We need to develop a scientific form of linguistics and this will require
education in math, physics, and computer science.
We have tried many times to tell you that the link between things is the
referent. I can make a new definition of what reference is (the close loop
representing relations between objects) and then explain that what people
identify as referents in human language have exactly this characteristic
and as we explained to you the idea that human language referents are
"anchored" to an object is a useful convention but in reality is an
I'm pretty sure the statement above points to this illusion that you
continue to say is what grounds language.
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:55 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Hi Gordon and Ben,
> It is very interesting, educational, and insightful to follow these
> conversations, and see your different ways of thinking about things.
> I have a question for you both. I'm interested to see how your answers
> will differ.
> CPUs have registers, and the computations are always done between
> registers. Things like comparison, addition, exclusive or and all that
> kind of stuff.
> Would either of you guys label those mechanisms done in the CPU as
> "communication" or "language"?
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:01 AM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 2:43 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> (you think that pointing is not a language? I suspect many deaf people
>>> would disagree)
>> Fine with me. Sign language is also a form of language.
>>> This is why referring to linguistics is not helping.
>> ? Because we are going to include sign language in our definition of
>> language, linguistics is not helping? Linguists consider sign language also
>> to be a form of language.
>> In our primitive caveman example, in which he points at let us say an
>> animal, his first "words" in sign language translate to something like
>> "Look over there! See what I see?" Based on how frantic or calm is his
>> gesturing, his interlocutor might also know if his friend perceives the
>> animal as a threat or as food. Now he has two words. Before long, Fred and
>> Barney are also grunting identifiable noises as their sign language evolves
>> into more complex verbal language.
>>> As I said earlier, it's the wrong discipline here.
>> Language models model language and linguistics is the science of
>> > Referents, being internal conceptual models, *are made of language*.
>> They must be, because there's nothing else to work with, in the brain.
>> Really? My brain has visual perceptions and sounds and imaginations and
>> non-verbal thoughts and music and many things going on that can be
>> *described* with language but are not language.
>> I understand what you are trying to say about the "language of the brain"
>> but I would say you are conflating neurology and language.
>> The statement "referents are made of language" is simply false on the
>> definition of referent. Only a tiny subset of words in the English language
>> have language as referents. Linguists call them meta-words. They are parts
>> of speech and similar. For example, the word "nouns" refers to the set of
>> all nouns.
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat