Brent I could not resist the punny imitation of the (same?) word. The first
"meant"<G> an explanatory - "i.e." - while the second in:
*I proposed the 'inter-lego' classic, *[Lat.]
* meaning to "read" (=understand **act out, apply, etc.) the meanings
BETWEEN the exactly worded lines **(not as exactly spelled out
verbatim)*
* ...*
refers to the 'stuff' we talk about (Please, don't ask: what is *'stuff'*).
Sorry that's my style in this 5th (6th?) of my learned languages.
(Especially when talking about that darn 'intelligence').
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> First we'd have to figure out what "means" means. :-)
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 9/6/2014 1:48 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Jeez - Liz, correction!!!
> *( a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what
> something means)*
> you may have meant: ...on what we THINK a 'meaning' may be ...?
> Who knows what something (anything) REALLY means? - not me, for sure.
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeez, and I thought intelligence was the easy one. But yes, using the
>> same definitions is important, a lot of megabytes have been wasted because
>> people don't agree on what something means (I won't mention free
>> will...oops.)
>>
>>
>> On 6 September 2014 09:18, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> After reading lots of repeats by otherwise smart people on the topic:
>>> do we have a concensus on this list (narrow target enough?) about
>>> some identification of * intelligence? * (forget Wiki!)
>>>
>>> I proposed the* 'inter-lego'* classic, meaning to *"read"*
>>> (=understand
>>> act out, apply, etc.) the meanings BETWEEN the exactly worded lines
>>> (not as exactly spelled out verbatim). It requires a WIDER view, some
>>> anticipatory talent maybe, some combinatorical capability and so on).
>>>
>>> There was not too much appreciation (indeed: no reflections at all).
>>>
>>> On *'artificial'* I have a weaker opinion: in our usage of language
>>> the
>>> word directs my mind towards *'speculative'* - as both man-confounded,
>>> or contraption-erected results - or both. (I wonder why 'my mind' does
>>> avert from the* 'naturally grown'* as artificial? Indeed Mme.Nature is
>>> also
>>> just human. Or so we think.
>>> Maybe I would lose my agnostic wisdom (ha ha) of unknowable and
>>> unfathomable pressures directing the *CHANGE* in the world).
>>>
>>> So: are we ready to vote for 'intelligence'? (Not the CIA, mind you!).
>>>
>>> John M
>>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
