= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Most interesting/creative people have some sort of ADD Personality...
In response to
Chaotic Inversion
[Citation Needed]
Knowing I am but one data point, I do not see myself as anything like an ADD personality, though I do see myself as creative (though not necessarily interesting). I can sit and work at a story for hours. This, unfortunately, is not the most efficient way to do things because I rarely have those kind of blocks of time.
I have no suggestions for anyone; for some reason I have the ability to clear my mind and work. I must confess that I have not bothered to find out why.
In response to
Say Not "Complexity"
Forgive me for latching onto the example, but how would an AI discover how to solve a Rubik's cube? Does anyone have a good answer?
Wouldn't the AI have to discover that it is something to be solved, first? Give a kid such a puzzle and she's likelier to put it in her mouth then even try.
Unless I'm being obtuse.
In response to
Attention Lurkers: Please say hi
Just registered to say hi. So, "Hi."
I'm a technical writer/ultra-part-time grad student at Northern Illinois University in Rhetoric & Professional Writing (working on my thesis so slowly). I also write stories and other such things.
Followed the wave from Overcoming Bias.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I very much agree with Public Heretic.
I have to disagree with this, TGGP. "They simply aren't fish" is only a meaningful statement if you presuppose what 'fish' refers to in a particular way.
'Fish' is being used to refer to different concepts. One of these concepts might be expressed in today's language as something like "streamlined aquatic vertebrate", so tuna, dolphins, and sharks would all count as 'fish'. Octopi, turtles, and jellyfish wouldn't. It's a matter of body structure. The modern use of the word refers to a more specific biological concept that excludes dolphins, octopi, turtles, and jellyfish (despite the name), and possibly sharks too. (I'd have to look that up.)
It's basically a translation issue. If you told the fisherman that "dolphins aren't fish", he would understand 'fish' to refer to a very different concept than its reference for you. By his concept, you would be wrong; by yours, he would be wrong. The key is to recognize what his referred concept is and how it differs from yours. You could explain that the word is used differently where you're from, explain how it's used, and possibly persuade the fisherman that your meaning is more useful than his. But if you keep using a different language that merely appears similar, a different mapping of word-to-meaning, you will never communicate anything with the man.
Whenever we wish to use a different meaning for a word than the generally-accepted one, we must state that we're doing so and what the new meaning is, explicitly. That is the only way we can hope to communicate with each other.
Your use of the word 'fish' is not more correct. It is more specific.
Sharks are considered fish of a certain type, in that they have a "full cartilaginous skeleton," at least per Wikipedia. Contrast with bony fish (e.g., tuna, catfish). Also considered fish are stingrays and such.
This is more of a tangent than a response:
I would suppose that because we are more specific about the shark subset, we can safely make more assumptions on it. I've been told always that sharks were cold-blooded. According to that Wikipedia article, that is a false belief; most sharks are but some are not.
I would agree that it is a translation issue, because that's what language lets people do when they talk/write/etc. But what about internally? What does it say now that I know some sharks (and therefore fish) are warm-blooded? I mean, besides getting pedantic and correct my daughter's teacher when that comes up.
I would appear my previous definition of fish is wrong.
Edit: Removed so many supposes.