268 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xewaka wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...
Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter.

For extremely large values of 2, 2 plus 2 does equal 5.

wow

2,3 rounds down to 2. 2,3 +2,3 = 4,6, which rounds up to 5. So Sylvius statement is actually correct, if rather counterintuitive and using some rather heavy-handed rounding to work.

No it isn't. 2.3 is not 2. 2,3 is more than 2 and thus cannot correctly be labelled as 2. At least not for the purpose of this thought experiment.

[daffl5]

I think it should give you the choice of what reaction u want at a certain time

[Xewaka]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
2,3 rounds down to 2. 2,3 +2,3 = 4,6, which rounds up to 5. So Sylvius statement is actually correct, if rather counterintuitive and using some rather heavy-handed rounding to work.

No it isn't. 2.3 is not 2. 2,3 is more than 2 and thus cannot correctly be labelled as 2. At least not for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Yes, yes it is, according to rounding rules. 2,3 =!= 2,0 is what you mean, because those have the same amount of decimal points, AND unless explicitly otherwise, it is assumed 2 = 2,0. However, when I reduce the amount of decimal points from one to zero, then 2,3 = 2. Or, if you prefer a more exact language, 2,3 rounds to 2.

[Mr Fixit]

no reason to split hairs, i'd say

[MerinTB]

Xewaka wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
2,3 rounds down to 2. 2,3 +2,3 = 4,6, which rounds up to 5. So Sylvius statement is actually correct, if rather counterintuitive and using some rather heavy-handed rounding to work.

No it isn't. 2.3 is not 2. 2,3 is more than 2 and thus cannot correctly be labelled as 2. At least not for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Yes, yes it is, according to rounding rules. 2,3 =!= 2,0 is what you mean, because those have the same amount of decimal points, AND unless explicitly otherwise, it is assumed 2 = 2,0. However, when I reduce the amount of decimal points from one to zero, then 2,3 = 2. Or, if you prefer a more exact language, 2,3 rounds to 2.

2 != 2,3

Go get some oranges or apples or baseballs.  Get one, then get another one.  Set them together.  Then get one, and another one, and set them together.  Now count them up.

And stop playing stupid, idiotic, childish contrarian games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No it isn't. 2.3 is not 2. 2,3 is more than 2 and thus cannot correctly be labelled as 2. At least not for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Depends how precise your measurement is.  If you've measured the value empirically, it's possible you won't be able to distinguish between 2.3 and 2.

The point of the statement is to demonstrate the limits of empirical measurements.  I understand this specific example is often used to impress this lesson upon engineering students.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 février 2013 - 05:28 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No it isn't. 2.3 is not 2. 2,3 is more than 2 and thus cannot correctly be labelled as 2. At least not for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Depends how precise your measurement is.  If you've measured the value empirically, it's possible you won't be able to distinguish between 2.3 and 2.

The point of the statement is to demonstrate the limits of empirical measurements.  I understand this specific example is often used to impress this lesson upon engineering students.

That may be true for engineering students, and it's a good lesson to learn about measurements--but I thought your arguments almost always were derived from your desire for absolutes and definitive definitions.

In math, 2 is definitively 2.  2+2=4 is the definition, unless you are Ayn Rand and you think it takes an act of will to understand that fact.  The exact nature of the defintion of 2 is what you want, at least I thought.

So by going off on this tangent, you are either undermining your own point of view--or you are demonstrating exactly why your stance on body language and communication is wrong (by the way that engineering students are taught about measurements and nothing ever being exact in reality.)

I'm just terribly confused right now about what your overall point is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I just think the main point of 1984 is undercut badly by the 2+2=5 assertion. That`s not a completely unsupportable claim.

`2`, on its own, is an imprecise element of the equation because we don`t know whether it is the mathematical definition of 2 or an empirical measurement. For some defensible uses of `2`, the sum can equal 5. Or 3. Or 11, in a base 3 number system.

It was an aside, and had little to do with the on-going discussion.

Though, I suppose I can find applicability there.  Language, like mathematics, is a theoretical construct.  It has the potential for a complete lack of ambiguity, and perfect precision.  As such, failing to use it in that way is a choice, not a requirement.

Body language is like an empirical measurement - one we cannot trust absolutely.  As such, why would we ever ascribe abolsute values to it?  We should constantly keep track of the margin of error on body language, just as we do with empirical measurements.

So, how do we measure the level of uncertainty in body language?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 février 2013 - 07:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He requires the kind of precision - and thus, lack of ambiguity - that is impractical and unnecessary for most people.  This in of itself is a problem, and it is compounded by his issues with sociology and psychology, the fields that provide us with relatively acceptable answers, but not him.

Unless someone can explain exactly how those fields provide `relatively acceptable answers`, I`m not going to believe that they do.  And I don`t see why you would, either.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 février 2013 - 07:37 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sweet Jesus, I've unleashed hell on earth. Or, rather, Sylvius did by erroneously thinking I was talking about 2+2=5 when I mentioned Winston Smith and O'Brien.

Let me clarify. Sylvius said: "It is possible to use language unambiguously."

To which I replied: "Do not dash Winston Smith's last hope for a better world! O'Brien, on the other hand, would be rather pleased with your stance on the matter."

O'Brien, as a member of the Inner Party in Orwell's 1984, would probably like nothing more than to irrevocably do away with old language norms, once and for all instituting Newspeak, a nightmarish language of certainty and unambiguity, bereft of anything even resembling humanity.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He requires the kind of precision - and thus, lack of ambiguity - that is impractical and unnecessary for most people.  This in of itself is a problem, and it is compounded by his issues with sociology and psychology, the fields that provide us with relatively acceptable answers, but not him.

Unless someone can explain exactly how those fields provide `relatively acceptable answers`, I`m not going to believe that they do.  And I don`t see why you would, either.

Excuse my French, as I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it, we are still using Newtonian mechanics although it most definitely isn't an accurate model of reality. There's this thing called relativity, yet it's way too complex to be useful in many situations.

Just as Newton is often "good enough", I'd say our imperfect understanding of human condition is also good enough for most intents and purposes. (Cue: Sylvius comes in and disputes that psychology and related fields are in fact sciences.)

[Mr Fixit]

I'm not saying he is.

Although, for someone who is purportedly concerned with precision and unambiguity, he does get misunderstood quite a lot. A logical thing would be to perhaps change his manner of communicating a bit? Just a proposal?

[MerinTB]

Mr Fixit wrote...
I'm not saying he is.

Although, for someone who is purportedly concerned with precision and unambiguity, he does get misunderstood quite a lot. A logical thing would be to perhaps change his manner of communicating a bit? Just a proposal?

Because everyone believes something doesn't make it true.

That said, when everyone else seems able to communicate and understand each other and you find yourself on the outside not comprehending how they all see green when you see red, it is perhaps time to consider that if everyone else is calling it green AND you are the only one calling it red, for the sake of communication you best start calling it green as well (even if, in your head, you refuse to stop thinking of it as red.)

In short--if someone finds fault in how everyone talks around them, and sees that everyone disagrees with them, that someone is probably the problem and not the solution.  Is it more likely that everyone else is wrong and the one person is right?

Occam's razor over conspiracy theories (or over delusions of grandeur, your choice.)

[Mr Fixit]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

I'm not saying he is.

Although, for someone who is purportedly concerned with precision and unambiguity, he does get misunderstood quite a lot. A logical thing would be to perhaps change his manner of communicating a bit? Just a proposal?

Logical if he was concerned with how he appears to others. Apparently not.

And that's why I think he's supremely illogical in his logic!

Why do you post here? Why do I? Why does anyone? Isn't it because we want to be heard, to exchange ideas, chat and, you know, sink some time? So if Sylvius is trying to accomplish some of these things, I'd argue there are more productive ways to accomplish them.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 février 2013 - 08:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He requires the kind of precision - and thus, lack of ambiguity - that is impractical and unnecessary for most people.  This in of itself is a problem, and it is compounded by his issues with sociology and psychology, the fields that provide us with relatively acceptable answers, but not him.

Unless someone can explain exactly how those fields provide `relatively acceptable answers`, I`m not going to believe that they do.  And I don`t see why you would, either.

We have.  As lay persons.  We can only offer lay testimony regarding how our experiences differ wildly from yours.  You've persisteted in maintaining that we are misinterpreting our experiences, as well as expressed an inability and unwillingness to seriously challenge your own assumptions because they are crippling your logic on this issue to the extent everyone recognizes it.

Start from this assumption: You are wrong.

Work from there.  And no, I don't care that you currently don't believe you're wrong.  Work from that assumption anyway.  Keep working from it until you change your own mind.  That's how out of step you are with the vast majority of people's understanding - lay or expert - of human interaction.  

Why this assumption? Basic troubleshooting.  Your point of view is the anomaly here, and in every thread even tangentially related to the subject, it always is.  Persisting with the point of view, as you have with me directly in previous encounters, that everyone else is wrong, is not only arrogant it's bad logic.  Unless of course, the assumption you're working with is that you're not only more intelligent and perceptive than everyone else, you know better about the subtleties of human interaction more than people who dedicate their lives to studying it do.

This is going to be my last word on the subject, short of a thread in Off-Topic titled, "Convince Sylvius he's wrong about humans."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 février 2013 - 09:09 .

[Mr Fixit]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Because everyone believes something doesn't make it true.

That said, when everyone else seems able to communicate and understand each other and you find yourself on the outside not comprehending how they all see green when you see red, it is perhaps time to consider that if everyone else is calling it green AND you are the only one calling it red, for the sake of communication you best start calling it green as well (even if, in your head, you refuse to stop thinking of it as red.)

In short--if someone finds fault in how everyone talks around them, and sees that everyone disagrees with them, that someone is probably the problem and not the solution.  Is it more likely that everyone else is wrong and the one person is right?

Occam's razor over conspiracy theories (or over delusions of grandeur, your choice.)

You're forgetting something, Merin.

Oooh, you are just naughty!

[Allan Schumacher]

Though, I suppose I can find applicability there. Language, like mathematics, is a theoretical construct. It has the potential for a complete lack of ambiguity, and perfect precision. As such, failing to use it in that way is a choice, not a requirement.

Language is not a theoretical construct. It's simply a means of conveying messages. The only difference verbal words have compared to body language is that they are more consciously driven. And we already know the level of assurances mankind has in something when he feels he's in total control (which he is moreso with spoken words, than with unspoken body language).

Mathematics is universal, language is not. The only way the number 2 stops meaning 2 in mathematics is because we've redefined what 2 means in our language. Mathematics itself is unaffected. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Body language can be used unambiguously as well (sign language). We just don't because we consider vocalization to be our primary form of communicating. The thing is, verbal communication suffers from the same unconscious ambiguities that exist in body language, since when we speak we don't just use words, but also our voice. Two different people saying the exact same thing, with even the exact same inflections in their voice, can communicate different things to an inherently flawed observer (another human being).

Words become less ambiguous when they are written; even more so when they are typed. Though the only way for them to be truly unambiguous is if the reader were devoid of any sort of bias. This is impossible in a universal sense.


I also disagree that it's a choice for us to not use language as precisely as you wish it could be. Much of what we perceive isn't consciously noticed, but that doesn't mean that it isn't perceived by our senses. I'm not choosing to ignore that I feel a chair pressed against my bum and my back. People don't even have absolute control over their conscious thoughts (as much as we like to think we do, and as much as the thought that we don't scares us).

Furthermore, the only way to truly remove body language as a way of communicating is to outright remove emotion from the picture. I don't typically smile because I choose to. I smile because it's often an involuntary reaction to something I have perceived. Any model that assumes emotion is not part of the equation is not going to accurately reflect reality.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 février 2013 - 09:17 .

[Little Princess Peach]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

We are exploring ways to allow the player to better react in a variety of ways to big events.

Has the fallback of ultimately "You can only select these reactions at the times that we allow you to" with the benefit of "At least for these choices, you're given a bit more flexibility in how you react."

Not a perfect solution, and still being investigated, but it is something that I think is a good thing to investigate.

Allan is there a way for the hero to react on an event on how we shaped them? for example in DA2, if we made Hawke use the funny comments all the time, she became snarky and joked about everything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

We have.  As lay persons.  We can only offer lay testimony regarding how our experiences differ wildly from yours.  You've persisteted in maintaining that we are misinterpreting our experiences, as well as expressed an inability and unwillingness to seriously challenge your own assumptions because they are crippling your logic on this issue to the extent everyone recognizes it.

The thing that stops me is this:

I don't understand why you would ever trust your own conclusions without first being able to explain clearly exactly how you reached them.  I have often asked for this very explanation; regardless of whether I would find it compelling, that you do would be extremely helpful.  But this explanation isn't offered.  People don't seem to know why they trust their own conclusions - they simply do, without any visible cause.

At some point in my life, I realised that I lacked sufficient cause to trust the vast majority of conclusions I had ever drawn, and summarily discarded them.  I don't trust any conclusion unless I can see how it was reached.  And even this doesn't guarantee that the conclusion is correct - the reasoning may well rest on some unfounded assumptions - but at least then I know what those assumptions are.  And then I can test them.

But the only assumption seemingly being used here is, "I can predict things accurately," which I would think we could falsify by finding counter-examples, but instead people plow ahead blindly regardless of how many instances I find of this assumption failing.

The paraphrase system used in DA2 appears to be the very best possible environment to disprove that assumption, and yet it remains held.

I don't get it.

Start from this assumption: You are wrong.

That's too broad.  Literally anything follows from that.

But thanks for the suggestion.  Your comments here are among the most helpful I've ever encountered on this subject.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I'm not saying he is.

Although, for someone who is purportedly concerned with precision and unambiguity, he does get misunderstood quite a lot. A logical thing would be to perhaps change his manner of communicating a bit? Just a proposal?

When I am actually misunderstood, it's typically when I'm making a distinction other people don't recognise exists (it's often a case of people incorrectly assuming an excluded middle).

Mostly people just disagree.

Mr Fixit wrote...

O'Brien, as a member of the Inner Party in Orwell's 1984, would probably like nothing more than to irrevocably do away with old language norms, once and for all instituting Newspeak, a nightmarish language of certainty and unambiguity, bereft of anything even resembling humanity.

O'Brien wants to do away with old language norms, but not to eliminate ambiguity.  He wants to eliminate entire concepts from the minds of the people, and he seeks to do so by eliminating from the language any terms that can be used to describe those concepts.

This would increase ambiguity, not eliminate it.

Mr Fixit wrote...

Excuse my French, as I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it, we are still using Newtonian mechanics although it most definitely isn't an accurate model of reality. There's this thing called relativity, yet it's way too complex to be useful in many situations.

Just as Newton is often "good enough", I'd say our imperfect understanding of human condition is also good enough for most intents and purposes.

We allow for imprecision in those calculations.  We build safety factors into things we construct, because we're aware of the limitations of the applicable theories.

Moreover, we don't try to apply Newtownian mechanics where we have reason to believe they don't apply.  This is, I
think, where human interaction goes wrong.

(Cue: Sylvius comes in and disputes that psychology and related fields are in fact sciences.)

I do find their tendency to generalse across relevantly dissimilar instances quite troubling.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Words become less ambiguous when they are written; even more so when they are typed. Though the only way for them to be truly unambiguous is if the reader were devoid of any sort of bias.

I would argue that the reader is irrelevant to any evaluation of the content of the words.

Though, I do like that you've supported (indirectly, and perhaps unintentionally) my assertion that the spoken language is a pale imitation of the written language, and has been ever since the invention of punctuation.

I also disagree that it's a choice for us to not use language as precisely as you wish it could be.

Lojban.

Language can be unambiguous.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 février 2013 - 04:14 .