humanmarkup-comment message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: Economics Conference Example
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>, susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:22:09 -0600
Title: Re: Economics Conference Example
psp
writes: "(the Whorf Hypothesis) should remind us that knowledge mapping in
communities of practice is NOT the same as machine knowing of data invariance
and patterns expressed via computer programs."
"Whorf
distanced himself from the behaviourist stance that thinking is entirely
linguistic (Whorf 1956, p. 66). In its most extreme version 'the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis' can be described as consisting of two associated principles.
According to the first, linguistic determinism, our thinking is
determined by language. According to the second, linguistic relativity,
people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite
differently...Moderate Whorfianism differs from extreme Whorfianism in
these ways:
- the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be 'influenced' rather
than unavoidably 'determined' by language;
- it is a two-way process, so that 'the kind of language we use' is also
influenced by 'the way we see the world';
- any influence is ascribed not to 'Language' as such or to one language
compared with another, but to the use within a language of one variety
rather than another (typically a sociolect - the language used
primarily by members of a particular social group);
- emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather than to
purely linguistic considerations, such as the social pressure in particular
contexts to use language in one way rather than another.
"
Byte
analysis is not the same as analysis of observable gestures, true. Trying
to solve that purely mechanically, and probably even with AI, is
likely
to be very difficult. However, human translators do a reasonable job
and a reasonable job may be all that is required. For Susan's
problem, real-time analysis is not required. A
human observer system that enables rapid acquisition and classification to
provide near
real-time response formulation is probably
adequate. Micro-analysis is best done after game time when one has the
luxury to sit back with
a beer
and the remote to shuttle back and forth over the tape. What the WTO
participants need is a means to sort faster and formulate
a
response by the next day. Elimination of miscommunication is not
possible and probably not desirable given that it is a tactic to
achieve a strategic objective. Much like radar
guns are met with radar detectors, the simply humans work harder to outwit the
system. The
best
approach is a clear long term policy for goals that remain consistent with the
tactics used to achieve it insofar as these goals are achievable.
For
this, a means to gather macro level and events and get an analyis of how these
amplify or interfere with the current tactics and overall goals
is
likely to produce satisfactory results with respect to the latency between the
call for service and the dispatch of the right assets.
len
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC