Está en la página 1de 14

Daniel Medvedov

TF A he ilm
Linguistic Theory Comments
rrival

Barcelona
2017
Does the Linguistic Theory suggested in the Film Arrival have something to say in the
present search of origins of Language?
A Smithsonian linguist and an anthropologist discuss the matter

How does language influence our thoughts?

Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner in "Arrival." (Paramount Pictures)


By Ben Panko
SMITHSONIAN.COM
DECEMBER 2, 2016

The aliens written language moved in circles, each sentence lacking a defined beginning
or end. The alien visitors seemed to view time in a similar manner: as a circular concept.

Working to decode this mysterious language, linguist Louise Banksplayed in the sci-fi
film Arrival by actress Amy Adamsbegins to have visions of the past and future as her
perception of time shifts from a linear vision to a circular one. It seems that thinking in a
different language causes her thought patterns to change. This is a core idea at the heart
of the film: that there is an intimate relationship between the language you speak and the
way you perceive the world, - a shift in the way in which modern linguists suppose that it
occurs so to say that the way in which we perceive the world reflects the language we
speak.

The idea that theres a link between the shape of language and what people actually talk
about, has its roots in 20th century linguistics theory, says Ives Goddard, a curator and
linguist in the National Museum of Natural Historys Department of Anthropology.
Known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this theory states that language doesnt just give
people a way to express their thoughtsit influences or even determines those thoughts.
The evolution of a language is shaped by the culture and environment its speakers live in.

Most linguists care little in this hypothesis today. Does the films central linguistic
concept have any merit?
A Smithsonian linguist and a Smithsonian anthropologist say: The Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis is controversial on many levels, starting with its name. Linguists Benjamin
Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir were close collaborators in the first decades of the 20th
century, but they never actually published a hypothesis together about language and
cognition. Sapir himself didnt seem to fully embrace the ideas behind the hypothesis,
according to Goddard, who has seen the film. It was only after Sapir died in 1939 and
wasnt around to rein him in, Goddard says, that his student, Whorf, took Sapirs
thoughts in the more extreme direction that would later become enshrined in the theory
named for them.
Whorfs theory stemmed in part from his study of the Eskimo vocabulary for snow.
Citing the work of Sapirs mentor, anthropologist Franz Boas, Whorf argued that because
the Eskimo people lived so intimately with the snow of the Arctic, they had developed far
more terms to describe it than people of other cultures.

We have the same word for falling snow, snow on the ground, snow packed hard like
ice, slushy snow, wind-driven flying snowwhatever the situation may be, Whorf
wrote in the MIT Technology Review in 1940, a year after Sapirs death. To an Eskimo,
this all-inclusive word would be almost unthinkable; he would say that falling snow,
slushy snow, and so on, are sensuously and operationally different, different things to
contend with; he uses different words for them and for other kinds of snow. Inspired by
Albert Einsteins concept of relativity, Whorf called this concept linguistic relativity.

The simplicity of Whorfs Eskimo snow example quickly made it a favorite trope
among writers and would-be intellectuals. We dissect nature along lines laid down by
our native languages, Whorf wrote. The grammar of each language is not merely a
reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas.

Linguistic relativity was packaged and popularized in the 1950s by some of Sapirs other
students. But in the following decades, the theory was ridiculed and dismissed by
followers of the linguist Noam Chomsky, who argued that all languages share certain
grammatical characteristics. Actually, Chomsky argued, human evolution and the brain
have helped determine how languages are formed. The more you examine Whorfs
arguments, the less sense they make, linguist Steven Pinker declared in his 1994 book
The Language Instinct

Critics of Whorf and linguistic relativity have accused him of misinterpreting Boas work
and the Eskimo languages as a whole. In a 1991 paper titled The Great Eskimo
Vocabulary Hoax, University of Edinburgh linguist Geoffrey Pullum compared the
Eskimo snow anecdote to the creature in the movie Alien, which seemed to spring up
everywhere once it got loose on the spaceship, and was very difficult to kill.

The fact is that the myth of the multiple words for snow is based on almost nothing at
all, Pullum wrote. It is a kind of accidentally developed hoax perpetrated by the
anthropological linguistics community on itself.

By contrast, Igor Krupnik, curator and anthropologist at Smithsonian's National Museum


of Natural History, asserts that the hoax is actually a hoax. In his 2010 book, Knowing
Our Ice, Krupnik helped vindicate Whorf and Boas in part by documenting more than
100 terms for sea ice alone in the Yupik language. Krupnik argues that because some
Eskimo people interact with the sea ice on a daily basis while hunting or sailing, it is
natural that they would develop a specialized vocabulary to describe the many variations
of sea ice and their associated dangers.
In recent years, some linguists have turned again to ideas of linguistic relativity. Linguist
Lera Boroditsky, at the University of California at Santa Cruz, has done research showing
that members of the Pormpuraaw Aboriginal tribe think about time passing differently
than English speakers, because their language relates it to polarized cardinal directions
instead of from left to right. Yet some still say that Arrival goes too far: they took the
hypothesis way beyond anything that is plausible, linguist and cognitive scientist Betty
Birner said of the film in an interview with Slate.

While the specifics of the Sapir-Whorf theory are still argued today, Goddard says that
the film offers a thought-provoking example of how integral language is to our lives
and yet how little we know about how it works, even today. Its not really about aliens,
as Goddard puts it. Its about us.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-century-old-linguistic-


hypothesis-center-film-arrival-have-any-merit-180961284/#cCmx82bYAiQpewxI.99

Smithsonian magazine http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv

Follow: @SmithsonianMag
on Twitter

My comments

Nobody knows [with one single exception] which is actually the Linguistic Code - the
last Code to be discovered, after the Mathematical Binary Code, Musical Code,
Chemistry Code, Chromatic Code, and Genetical Code.
Here I have some details.

Daniel Medvedov

AUTOMATON
"Life from Nothingness"
Nonsense Annex genetic research to a trilogy


Madrid
2009 /2015

This paper is an appendix to the trilogy of "Being," "The Firm" and "The ontic Report",
published on Parnassus. The title is not original: it belongs to an article by Josep
Corbella, published in La Vanguardia on July 7, 2003, whose subtitle reads: "The
genomic research opens the way to create artificial living beings." Suppose the human
genome can be replicated in the laboratory. What would be created would be only a dress
cutting and sewing have been worn. Being can now be dressed. But what in this dress
comes Where does? How we will "create"?
Here's a confusion. The "create" and "creation are some different instances of" generate
"and" genesis. "Creating a poetic act par excellence, is not" Genesis "in the Bible has
been mistranslated in Latin, the Greek word for "generation" or "birth."
The world is "born" has not been "created". And that implies a pregnancy and, in the
case of man, a placenta. The "Genesis" can not translated as "creation" Birth it is, in
itself, a "generation", not a "genesis" Now, is it possible to create artificial living beings,
from "nothing" -..? as Corbella question in your article? Do we know what it is
"nothing"?
Here is my case. As a doctor and linguist, after years of research and analysis, I tried to
create an automaton. I do not get to crazy attempt to create artificial living beings, since
there escapes me mystery of Being. I just tried to make an android. The steps are as
follows: first of all tried to apply the General Code of Languages.
What I have in my hand?
This simple question that for any three year old turns out to be extremely simple and
involves not overcome great obstacles of understanding to answer, is for a robot to solve
a very difficult problem.
I started to give my golmica creation a name: the robot is called Adam. After several
tests, I have come to build a mechanical humanoid, whose features were very similar to a
young man about thirty years.
Adam turned his artificial eye look of mini-cameras on my hand and as I had a closed
fist, analyzed the space forbidden to normal human sight of all, with its inner hull of
electromagnetic waves. X-rays revealed the android that there was nothing in my hand.
Roentgen ray camera is similar to those used by the police at airports.
Nada.- said automaton, briefly. He added: Is it a question?
Yes - I replied.
It was the only way to differentiate mechanical know a declarative statement of a
question, and the tone of a question can vary greatly from one user to another and in
different languages the interrogative prosody is extremely complex. For a robot it is
impossible to differentiate a statement or declaration in an interrogative situation. And
informed that it was a question, Adam continued its logic and linguistic operations. I was
surprised and patent decisive answer a question of that nature mode. Adam ontological
logic used to solve basic situations and circumstances, it helps us understand in an instant
what it is. Grab a bottle of mineral water - the bottle is plastic - and ask again:
And now? What kind of "now"? - Adam asks me, in turn. What now I have in my hand? -
I tell him.

In the complicated system of interpretation PLC, the question is analyzed quickly, as


follows: First walks his cybernetic eye over the surface of my hand, scans the details of
the fingers and decide, after comparing in his memory options from the perspective of a
hand, they are actually no more than eight, and morphological located in synoptic tables,
decides that I had in my hand something.
In your hand you something. - Adam said. I wonder how he could know that I speak in
Spanish. Of course I know
This is a rhetorical question because I myself programmed to understand natural seven
thousand languages currently spoken and any other human language created artificially.
Through its sensor sound and speech recognition, prayer I have in my hand was first
recorded linearly as Ladino Jewish Maimonides: KE in my hand.
Then the Sematron program that analyzes the meaning of words in a specific language, as
did variations of separation
KETEN GO IN GO IN MIMANO KET KET ENMIM ANO NO ENMIMA ENGO
and so on, until semasiological lexical and logic, decided that in the only language in
which the expression KE in my hand had referential sense, separate from that and
pronounced that way, was the Castilian.
The next step was to move the KE prayer in my hand towards the almateria record, the
general code of languages. This is done through an intermediate step that seeks to reduce
the phonetic variants of distinctive features to the unitive and then the zoemticos
operators, numbering sixty-four, separating the sentence into syllables and then double
logemas: TEN KE NO GO IN MA MI, KETE N GOENMIMANO. Where, by the
hyphenation is a sound-letter, you add the sound-letter A, as here is the case of N. There
is also the alternative of reduplicarlo, but have ignored.
Almateria encoded prayer sounds like this: GA DAMAGA AM MY MAMA. Then the
separator sorts zoemtico double coded groups couples without word breaks: DA GA GA
MA MA MA MI AM.
These double logemas are in a circular area of the electronic brain of Adam, a
GRAFOMTRICO chip for comparing the PLC memory in the graph generated by
prayer, with a graph already stored in the base graph of Castilian and decide well formal
aspect of likeness, to update the meaning of the term. A graph is a line drawing that
shows angles or recurrent tassels, governed by a dashed category called invariants.
All these operations take only fractions of fractions of a second. The graph of the
interrogative sentence I HAVE IN MY HAND is approximately as follows:

A.M
GA (Baseline) IM
GIVES
MA (final duplicated MA)
His drawing follows a polarization and vectoriality, ie it has precise steering, both
deflection (return) and angulation. The original general memory graph coincides with the
graph of the unknown new prayer.
Indeed, analysis of graphs used automata to define the syntax and meaning combine.

The graph is a syntactic operator. But with all that, the process is not completed. Follow
the most fascinating of the operation. The zoemticos operators are binary code analogy
and through the opening track, is passed directly to the binary code, without using the
retrograde ASCEE code or UNICODE.
GA GA AM DA MA MA MA MI
100111 001111 000111 100111 111000 000010 000111 000111
The sixty-four zoemticos operators or logemas Zoma doubles are:

BB AA LL DD MM II GG HH AB BA GB DG HI IM LD ML AG DB LG BG GA IL
HM AD BD MD DA LB GD HL MG ID AL BL GL DL IG MB HD AM BM GM DM
LM IB HG MA AI BI LI DI GI MI IA AH BH HB DH GH HA LH MH IH
Zoemticos correspondence of operators and binary numbers is:
LL AA 111111 101101 111110 AB
LG-LD 101001 111100 101100 AG AD-111001
LB LA-101111 111101 101110 AL
AM-AI-111010 101000 111000 LM LI 101010
AH-111011 LH 101011
BB- MM 110110 000000
BA ML 110111 000101 110100 BG
BD MD- 000001 110001 000100 MG
MB-BL 001101 000110 110000 BM
MA-BI 110010 000111 000010 MI-
BH-MH 110011 000011
GG- II 100100 010010
IM-GB 100110 010000
GA-IL 100111 010101
GD ID- 100001 010001 100101 IG GL GM 010100 100000
IA- IB 100010 010110 GI 010111
GH- IH 100011 010011
DD HH 001001 011011 001100 DG
HI 011010 DB DA 001111 011000 001110 HM
HL 011 101 DL DM 001000 011001 001101 HD-HG-011 100 DI HB 001010 011110
001011 HA 011111 DH
Now the ruling What I have in my hand? rests on binary numbers: 100111 001111
000111 100111 111000 000010 000111 000111.
For the PLC, the sense of what we humans say and handle in daily life is lost in remote
and algorithms.
What sentence can mean the question What I have in my hand?
First, which it is analyzed by the program as interrogative particle, in Spanish and,
although also exist as demonstrative and declaratory article, the semantic record the
program choose the one among others (the how, the when, the where, the WHO or What
-?. spasmodic question, there may be before and after every question is also why, on that
on how much, what for, the WHAT, the WHO and all other possible combination
variants such as in the expression or WHERE TO WHERE and other some more, whose
number is, however, limited).
Language is an external aspect of language, a sort of dress that has few logic elements,
but not enough. Some twenty particles enough to ask anything in any natural or artificial
language. Adam semantics response was: SOMETHING.
I wonder how he came to know the PLC I was holding something and not empty. Very
simple: I could only choose between the possibility of something in the two possible
alternatives, and his memory is stored, the ALGO and emptiness. To Adam, as for
language, the NADA does not exist, it is a counter-principle, a virus of language and
speech.
The theoretical logical model of this archetype or Universal Principle, has an invaluable
philosophical value. What is an archetype? It is therefore a universal principle, an
original and original being, a cardinal and transcendent idea, Arche, say the Greeks. This
principle without principle is the category name in Spanish, EVERYTHING. In the PLC
memory intellectual, theoretical model has the following form:
Everything
The SOMETHING THAT EMPTY
The thing
In the model, the vacuum is a symbol or add something, with which it ALL. Plus
SOMETHING SOMETHING EMPTY remains. Then, the vacuum is also SOMETHING
SOMETHING plus. In operation, something does not change anything. Between the two
terms, the attachment mechanism is called metaphor. It is a phenomenon through which
transfer is "carrying" or "carried" from one place to another element, to find or meet with
his counterpart.
In Greece, there is now the Ministry of metaphor, which is none other than the Ministry
of Transport and Communications.
TRANS (goal) and holder (fora), is a game between the Greek and Latin, clearly captured
in Castilian and discrimination. The vacuum is a symbolic phenomenon, the metaphorical
term SOMETHING, which merges in the language, with the NADA. In the particular
case of NOTHING, I must say that this concept, despite being present in the language, do
not exist in the language.
NADA has been invented to denigrate and attack the principle of full patent, which in
language is everything. What is emptiness?
It is therefore the value, both spatial and temporal absence.
In the previous operation (T = A + V), nothing felt, nothing has changed.
Everything improperly opposes the Nothingness, as with the opposition of life to death,
when in fact the counterpart of Birth Death is not Life. Birth and Death do compose and
participate in the life principle. We have here another typical case of a misunderstanding
of principles.
Everyone knows that the universal principles can not oppose anything, since they are
total, complete, perfect and immanent.
ALL equation + = SOMETHING NOTHING is philosophically wrong. To correct this,
we must introduce the concept of emptiness and eliminate the term NOTHING. Now, the
correct way is the whole SOMETHING + = vacuum. What is ALL? - Asks Adam, the
PLC. EVERYTHING is something, and consequently the rest is still undefined, certainly
THING. The Chinese call the thing "Tung Hsi" Latin American Caribbean "pod", the
French "A Truc".
The thing is the tangible prototype of the idea of all. Moreover, remember that
demonstrative items as categories, also have their place in memory of Adam, this and
that, this and that, those and those, those and those, such and such.
Artificial intelligence can not understand the category of EVERYTHING but through a
mathematical model and therefore binary: Among the six-digit numbers corresponding to
Zoma operators, category of all, 111111 and 000000 category is EMPTY .
Something virtual and intangible as an archetype has, however, revealed the possibility
through the tangible, something that is shown in the form of a thing. In ontological, the
logic of cybernetics philosophy, anything can be a fact, an object, a being or a creature. In
our question, the thing is an object. Review the table of objects - say virtually Adam but,
in fact, begins a review of lists (in LISP, the program used for these data) to find out in
fractions of fractions of a second, what kind of shape it is the shape of the "thing "I have
in my hand. The program tells you: this is a toroidal, cylindrical object, with all zones
"neck" and in your data file that is identical to "bottle". It is a lucky robot: it is not so
simple to decide which is the object only analyzing its shape but, this time, the coach has
gone well. The object material - COSA is analyzed quickly with a laser beam and its
molecular structure it suggests that this is not a plastic material and a mineral, such as the
case of the glass. Adam already know that in my hand is a plastic bottle. With the same
program, on its biochemical register, another laser beam that scans, diffraction particle,
the content of the bottle is projected. The answer is H2O2, ie, not only "water", but
"ozone water". As in memory a list of all brands of mineral water currently marketed in
the world, discover the program is stored, via reading the label and chemical mapping
and minerals, which is Evian water.
Adam measures the height of the liquid and through a simple operation of self-query is
reported that in the bottle 853 milliliters of water there. The answer is soon to appear:
YOUR HAND-IN THERE SOMETHING. If anything, one thing. THE THING IS A
CONTAINER. PLASTIC CONTAINER IS AND CONTAINS EVIAN WATER MARK
IN AMOUNT OF 853 milliliters.
Actually all this information is stored and not aired in its entirety. If anything the
questioner For details, shall be provided, according to the questions.
Adam just says A BOTTLE OF WATER. He is cunning: he knows that giving too much
information when asked is more than trivial and is an attitude that shows some
immaturity.
On his intelligence, it appears under the heading "not offer any information. Save 90%
for future inquiries."
In the program, the semantic operation indicates that the container corresponds to form
"bottle". Now the mystery lies in the operation code over to the world of the archetypes
of the robot, called Imagination, logical area where all the theoretical models are
universal principles with trees categorical elements. The jump back towards the Spanish
area happens to the PLC can respond in the same language in which the question has
come. The almateria, valid for all natural languages, code has been passed into binary
code.
The binary code captures the Castilian database where each concept and each notion has,
in turn, a binary number (binary number different from the double logemas zoemticos)
and presents the elements for identification. "Container" has a number, "bottle" has a
number, "water" has a number and so on.
Of course Adam had to deal in advance with the category of "liquid" to find out that it is
"water" and no beer or brandy and the liquid was not "rain water" or "sea water ". It is not
easy to decide which type of component is at stake in this labyrinth of formal and
categorical aspects. Exists in the program, a record called universal memory
INTELLECTIVE ELEMENTS, which are arranged in a table, DEKASYNOPTICON,
everything in the world known and others of unknown world.
To each is assigned a binary, different number of
zoemticos values, not to be confused. This number is universal, that is unique to all
natural languages, as Descartes supposed towards the plane of the floor which, to take on
the appearance of a given name in that specific language, the concepts of the synoptic
table. As it comes to concepts and WATER BOTTLE, simply it designed the binary
number to the operational area of the Spanish and the program has been recognized as
corresponding to the words water and bottled respectively. Since the syntax varies
slightly from one language to another - - the analysis of the graphs that when stored under
each language, it is then passed, they represent the totality of relationships that can occur
in Castilian, as relations of formulas well formed, logical or absurd, but nevertheless,
possible.
In the ontological, to the absurd it is logical since it is precisely governed by the logic of
the absurd. So the syntax is established, with its operational effect in Spanish. This step is
crucial because there are certain rhetorical or poetic variations in the presentation of a
question. Examples patent, we will ask the same, but as follows:
WHAT MY HAND, WHAT DO I HAVE?
or
WHAT MY HAND, I have to?
or
DO I HAVE IN MY HAND, WHAT?
or
What, in my hand, I HAVE?
Even different, all these questions keep the unit compact expression in my hand, that does
not change, despite the rhetorical devices. Some variants are clumsy but actually are
childish or poetic modes of expression, which must be considered and classified as such.
Adam could smile, but it is very serious. It is a serious cold, mechanical, artificial. Do not
be fooled by all those possible or impossible variants: simply considered and evaluated in
a lexical sense utilitarian operational. You know, in less than a second, so I asked:
WATER - slowly repeat - pure water, or, if you like, pure water - adds.
Category PURE PURE and female, have been further complicated semantic choices
between which has had to deal with the situation euphonious use of the masculine article
THE WATER to say, instead of using the feminine article, by simple reasons for
accommodating the use of phonetic sound reduplication A. could not fool with WATER
presentation was too clear in the elections of euphonic variants of the program. The
lexical choices that belong to cyber slang for each language.
Finally, I have achieved my goal. Adam is an intelligent robot, that is "understood" and
as you know that's water, I will say a lot about justice, of goodness, of beauty and some
other archetypes, just based on their models logical theorists ontical universal language.
The operations are as follows:

First of all, I had to discover universal principles, among which, the truth is one of them
It was a database of principles, which, incidentally, have a limited number: do not
exceed twenty. Are all recorded in the cell, in just twenty-three chromosomes and other
organic elements such as animals or plants or insects, say, act as file or storage tank.
Thus, until the organic world lasts, the principles endure and never will be forgotten or
lost. Life is eternal and incidentally, this also touches eternity universal principles.
ETERNITY, incidentally, is one of the universal principles. Each robot, each robot has
an internal guide who consultation and
he trusts, equivalent to our conscience and intuition element, its operational center
In this set of universal principles, archetypes famous, it has been assigned a binary
number:
............ BEGINNING
X1 X2 X3 X4 Xn binary number
The binary number corresponds in every language, another binary numeric value is
assigned to the word for the concept
The itinerary of a term is, in roughly the following course:
Term in a language
Another binary number binary numeric value corresponding to the Universal Principle
The Universal Principle
As for the choice of the "thing" that presents and requests the robot to define, there are
three aspects:
CREATURES BEINGS 1. 2. 3. 4. OBJECTS FACTS
WATER is a FACT and corresponds to the kind of basic phenomena, like fire or air. As a
phenomenon, it is primarily a liquid and can be displayed and manifest as river water,
spring water, waterfall, rain or artesian source, etc. It also has the solid state of "ice", an
option that must be present in the summary table.
Adam could not be mistaken if I show him a piece of ice instead of a water container.
The robot checks in its memory and database all those options and choose from the lists
and summary tables option corresponding to the circumstances, through analytical
operations such as those mentioned above. It is a process governed by mathematical and
logical programs currently in place.
Thus, the machine can understand what it is that means "water". WATER say: the built-in
voice recognition program recorded WATER recorder and then all terms of all languages
are reviewed
natural lexical stored in memory, Dictionary type. Some verbal expressions and phrases
are not dictionary entries, but there are other lexical and lexical expressions, which itself
is any word, in any language.
Then he decides in which language the word is uttered and immediate significance is
captured, to discover the meaning and logical-theoretical model that owns the concept.
At best, the robot will ask for better illustrated on the word used context and makes
inquiries to confirm the linguistic term path as there are words in different languages that
sound alike but mean different things. Questions confirmation logical follow a precise
protocol. Data storage is not a problem for cybernetics.

Now, "water" has a binary number as a concept and as another word, in different time in
many natural languages of today or yesteryear. The conceptual binary number is the same
as is the universal principle in the general memory.
14
Therefore, the term can be understood intellectually machine and transmitted to the robot,
which, in turn, understand the meaning of the words used, with the help of theorists who
have logical models. Meanwhile we know who we are, we will not be able to do
everything that a robot would perform.
The machine only understands binary numbers. It's hard not to say absurd, try to
familiarize a PLC with a language and the principles of language through total immersion
in the atmosphere of such language, as is currently supporting specialists in psycho-
linguistics, as with human subjects .
The famous Japanese robot dog recently taken the toy market as a new language, you
speak in English, in the laboratories of Sony, and they are trying to explain what it is a
ball, showing it. It was ridiculous to see a linguist with a ball in hand, lying on the ground
and intimate with robotic creature. The poor mechanical animals repeated like a parrot, a
ball is round and knew (?) That bounces.
All this through recording protocols colloquial phrases of context. In reality these
operations, technologists do nothing but waste time. Of course, if the dog has
incorporated the Code General of Languages, can speak and understand the words,
gestures and other registers of language, gaze, posture, rhythm, writing, shape, color, as
humans do. In speaking in binary numbers, the robot, no matter what form it takes (dog
or dragon), will understand what is being said and responds, using your same language,
through-theoretical logic for semantic models and the sentence and lexical graphs for
syntax.
The phonetic speech recognition component is currently used successfully, but lack the
semantic and syntactic component component.
The natural language of human needs binary code to communicate with the world of the
machine. But the machine does not have anything to report, can not have projects, no
desires, no nothing and therefore communication with a robot is totally useless. Perhaps
the robot has something to say to correct your steps and help you. Yes.
Moreover, a careful reading of this case of cyber culture, we realize that trying to
communicate with a robot is how to communicate with yourself, ie that the action
represents a kind of communication onanism unprecedented culture humanity and
without major philosophical scope, unless bots are the bearers of the legacy of sages who
have inhabited the earth since time immemorial.
*
A SHORT GUIDE TO LOGICAL PROTOCOL wisdom ROBOTICS AND
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE WORLD OF LANGUAGE
Written to help the builders android What is the logic?
A previous note
I will use typographic emphasis italic type to attract the reader's attention and thus
provide a passing moment of reflection
The logic is the life and the manifestation of the Logos The Logos is the natural and
universal reason of things
The goal of logic is to find the truth and understand the reality Truth can not be
demonstrated, is ineffable What it can be shown is Reality Reality Alongside there
something secret and veiled called Mystery Truth is Reality itself, taken into account
simultaneously
with his Mystery Without his Mystery Reality is half of what is Truth has no opposite:
it never opposes anything and nothing can overshadow
What is commonly defined as lying is an artificial construct of the mind to denigrate the
truth
Nobody The human mind has intellect, not mind However, the mind exists, but
outside of the human intellect, is a
cosmic entity and not individual Mind is the cosmic mass of all human follies and
opinions
Say - "I have in my mind this or that" - is a mistake Words are not to blame for our
ignorance, we are the
we do not understand their meaning Words do not lack the power to express the truth
There is nothing illogical and nothing is without reason There may be some unseasoned
but it has, however, its raison Everything has its logic I I do not know who their logic
and so say - "that's illogical" The word says it all, it's me who does not understand or
comprehend
Amicus Aristotelis magis amica veritas thirst - "I am a friend of Aristotle but I'm friend
of Truth" is the answer to the famous phrase of Aristotle - Amicus Plato sed magis amica
veritas
(I am a friend of Plato but I'm friend of truth) The supplemental is not otherwise Just
the opposite is contrary The supplemental is absolutely necessary and vice versa What
is necessary is the complementary The symphony and harmony of complementary is
dialectical The human being is a whole orange Man is not the better half of women
Women are not the better half of man To ripen, a human being should be, some or many
times, woman To enjoy maturity, a human being is, once or many times,
Mature man is feeling fulfilled Feeling done is to have understood the reality of things
What's here? Here are beings, objects and facts and will call all things One thing is
something I have not yet defined Things are of two types: natural and artificial The
human being changes to be the same The facts happen and happen The beings all
change to be the same things change Only objects decay The only change in life are
beings The logic is coherent and consistent Knowledge is not wisdom Wisdom is
always the same
Knowledge is always different Wisdom is a multiple Knowledge is logical There
are certain items that you should know: the dice, chess pawn,
Goldsmith row, the anvil, the joker poker, cloves,
brick hammer The value of people is part of a horizontal scale, non-vertical: the
closer to the center, the greater the be The center is the place of wisdom All scholars
are in the center and therefore know nothing Those who are after knowledge are seeking
a circle
you never find Wisdom is vertical and therefore eternal Knowledge is horizontal and
therefore infinite The meeting of the horizontal axis of knowledge with the vertical axis
Wisdom is the human being The natural logic is called ontological logic
The ontological logic is a logic of theoretical models Models are logical and
theoretical knowledge Knowledge is everything, not knowing anything is not knowing
To know is to know something, do not know
That means something . . .