Glen
Speaking of unnatural languages, this just in, in response from
someone off-list
but maybe apropos to some if not many in this group:
++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
Well, what's fascinating is that this language is more natural to the
computer than it is to us humans. And it is more natural for
expressing logic than is, say, English. It's my fault for failing to
mention the fact that whether a language is natural to an act/concept
depends fundamentally on the act/concept. I'd even argue that it
depends less on the constitution of the observer than we might
otherwise think.
I'd love to have you unpack this a little more for me, but not sure
about the "room"... I'm very interested in the underpinnings of your
assertions, not just the assertions... your ideas usually have a
compelling quality for me, even when they are obscured in your
unconventional (use of) language.... I'm starting to worry that this
is a recursive meta-conversation...???
Languages like the above probably come fairly natural to, say, a
logician (as much a bag of chemicals as, say, a musician or sausage
maker) primarily because a logician spends a lot of time and energy
committing the _act_ of logic.
I have refrained from diving down the rabbit hole of trying to suss out
the language, not because I'm afraid it will live up to it's name, but
because the details of it are irrelevant to using it as a flip response
to you...
- Sieve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
