I realize that is what the mathematicians tried, but I am afraid that they did not get very far. I am undecided if they lacked taste, talent or spunk
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There’s a readable syntax for OWL - ‘Sydney Syntax’. I’m lead author. OWL is formal logic and the syntax is a carefully controlled subset of English, so the meaning is precise.
-
Wittgenstein reloaded!
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Do you take language as tool for thinking or its disguise and reportable form?
-
Language is used to compile code. The code is a sequentially executable logical construct, and most of the heavy lifting is done in perceptual computation. I think that the syntax of perceptual models is tightly constrained by the needs of structuring cortical activity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Esperanto?
-
Ugh, no. Worse than Interlingua, it's mostly just trying to doctor the spelling and arrangement of keywords. It does not even have a math library!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Did you have a look into Lojban by the way?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also (and I'll stop being so excited after this)... There are two kinds of communication functions in normal human life, the artistic/emotional one, for which English is lovely and robust, and the technological/intellectual one, which requires representational/objective symbols.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think we think in languages. We certainly exchange thinking in languages though
-
I often think in paragraphs. I really do. (Which is partly why I've always hated Twitter.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.