Artists & Celebries & Entertainment: February 2015

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Re: Mind's Eye Götterdämmerung

Yes, I liked Vam too. Not too bad for a theistic sort. If Ian Pollard were here, we'd balance the God lovers out rather nicely.

But see, again, that's why I miss Fran so much. He was a philosophical atheist who made you believe in God with the sincerity of his words.

I think I'm going to email him.

2015-03-01 0:05 GMT-05:00 <allanh1946@gmail.com>:

mein Deutsch ist nicht die beste. Ich habe festgestellt, Übersetzer haben sich in den Jahren verbessert. Ich wünschte, auch Francis war hier, als auch Vam, vielleicht haben Sie zu fragen konnte.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Jenkins <digitalprecipice@gmail.com>
To: Minds-Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 1:56 AM
Subject: Mind's Eye Götterdämmerung

Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere Emotionen? Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich vorstellen, wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung?

Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, wenn sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; wenn sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu kommunizieren?

Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die so viel Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache verbracht hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit sie in englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, ob ich einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung

But ich mag Gabby!

What I'm on about is the idea that the difference between our intended meaning and machine translation versus the difference between our intended meeting and what the listeners intuit our intended meaning to be may not be so great. We're aware of the loss of intention that can occur between languages, but less so the loss of intention that can occur between speaker and listener.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:58 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

We sort of do that in 'reducing' natural language suitable for code and compile. The game 'Chinese whispers' may be something of an example of what you're on about. Our personal banter would not be possible if taken literally. Much language is highly constrained by manners intended, as you say, to be translated by others we fear will mis-interpret.

We have machines that are linking material we don't expect them to now. I have long thought of this as 'spreadsheet-database reasoning' though most hearing the words think of some odious accounting-type stuff. The machines can take far more into account than we manage. Translation of a boring neo-liberal speech by Cameron to the correct German, or in reverse of one by Mutti into English is not anything like how both speeches would translate in me. Machine translation might actually add a critique.

Clarity seems at work in your suggestion Chris. I can translate 'I really like Gabby' into German, but we'd still have no idea what message I was really sending or how it was received. Ich habe ein großes Bedürfnis translates as I have a great need, or I need a piss in patois. We could think of a different kind of translation.

It's also possible to think of a site like this with instantaneous translation - we might then have to be more active readers on the possibility of mistranslation and learn more tolerance.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:51:39 AM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote:
"Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out"

As is clearly demonstrated by the attached English translation. :D

And yet, I wonder how careful we would be with our words if we were consciously aware they always had to be fed through a translator to reach someone else. And then I wonder why we don't realize that they already are, even when we're speaking in the same "Mother Tongue" (I love how that translated).

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:33 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
The German sounds somewhat more hostile than the translation Chris. There's some work on how tone of voice affects decision. Argument content rarely does well. Voice to text converters I've tried always fail (slightly better if grandpa leaves his teeth in). We do know bilingual (and multi) brains work differently than those with only one language. And little AI programmes outperform us on old arcade games and most of us at chess.

When it comes to talking to machines, natural language has been a pisser - though I hear claims we may be getting round this. Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out. Spoken language is noise-ridden, and even then maybe only ten percent of what humans communicate face to face.

Though we like to think picking up on nuance and emotion is smart, this may be very misguided - especially as we are so easily conned by liars, psychopaths and narcissists. Psychos do three times better with parole boards than ordinary criminals, suggesting something is lost in translation by worthies on parole boards. My daughters were even more successful with me.

We have machines working on Identifying sickos and psychos based on language (text) use. The basic idea is to place some text from obvious to sickos, identify Which words, phrases, syntax and so on They use, then program the machine to spot them. We are doing something similar with facial recognition and gait analysis. The way we walk is like a fingerprint.

In emotional intelligence tests we find a lot of smart people (and dumb ones) do not get facial expressions as They are supposed to. Having seen many smiling assassins I'm not sure who is getting this wrong.

I'd Probably want to examine presuppositions on the bit lost in translation from the perspective did natural language is not as smart as we think anyway and May have a prime directive of confusion and deceit. And I miss Francis too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:56:27 AM UTC Chris Jenkins wrote:
What if the only way we could communicate was not understood by other software capable of emotions? Digital communication not convey tone now, imagine if they also lost nuance in translation?

I'm thinking about this because I have the conversations in this group often break into two people together to talk over. I wonder if the other speakers understand at all. If our words not only lost her tone, but also their native dialect; if it was something even the speaker does not understand before they can receive from another person, we would be able to communicate at all?

I wish Francisco were here to weigh; he would have insight I'd valuable as a native English speaker who has spent so much time in a country with a language other than their mother tongue to find. Gabby has been similar insight, how much time she spends in English with us, (and how many times have I asked if I missed a sense in translation), but I guess they are usually only fun poorly translated make my German , : D

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Götterdämmerung

mein Deutsch ist nicht die beste. Ich habe festgestellt, Übersetzer haben sich in den Jahren verbessert. Ich wünschte, auch Francis war hier, als auch Vam, vielleicht haben Sie zu fragen konnte.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Jenkins <digitalprecipice@gmail.com>
To: Minds-Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 1:56 AM
Subject: Mind's Eye Götterdämmerung

Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere Emotionen? Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich vorstellen, wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung?

Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, wenn sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; wenn sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu kommunizieren?

Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die so viel Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache verbracht hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit sie in englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, ob ich einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung

We sort of do that in 'reducing' natural language suitable for code and compile. The game 'Chinese whispers' may be something of an example of what you're on about. Our personal banter would not be possible if taken literally. Much language is highly constrained by manners intended, as you say, to be translated by others we fear will mis-interpret.

We have machines that are linking material we don't expect them to now. I have long thought of this as 'spreadsheet-database reasoning' though most hearing the words think of some odious accounting-type stuff. The machines can take far more into account than we manage. Translation of a boring neo-liberal speech by Cameron to the correct German, or in reverse of one by Mutti into English is not anything like how both speeches would translate in me. Machine translation might actually add a critique.

Clarity seems at work in your suggestion Chris. I can translate 'I really like Gabby' into German, but we'd still have no idea what message I was really sending or how it was received. Ich habe ein großes Bedürfnis translates as I have a great need, or I need a piss in patois. We could think of a different kind of translation.

It's also possible to think of a site like this with instantaneous translation - we might then have to be more active readers on the possibility of mistranslation and learn more tolerance.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:51:39 AM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote:

"Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out"

As is clearly demonstrated by the attached English translation. :D

And yet, I wonder how careful we would be with our words if we were consciously aware they always had to be fed through a translator to reach someone else. And then I wonder why we don't realize that they already are, even when we're speaking in the same "Mother Tongue" (I love how that translated).

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:33 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
The German sounds somewhat more hostile than the translation Chris. There's some work on how tone of voice affects decision. Argument content rarely does well. Voice to text converters I've tried always fail (slightly better if grandpa leaves his teeth in). We do know bilingual (and multi) brains work differently than those with only one language. And little AI programmes outperform us on old arcade games and most of us at chess.

When it comes to talking to machines, natural language has been a pisser - though I hear claims we may be getting round this. Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out. Spoken language is noise-ridden, and even then maybe only ten percent of what humans communicate face to face.

Though we like to think picking up on nuance and emotion is smart, this may be very misguided - especially as we are so easily conned by liars, psychopaths and narcissists. Psychos do three times better with parole boards than ordinary criminals, suggesting something is lost in translation by worthies on parole boards. My daughters were even more successful with me.

We have machines working on Identifying sickos and psychos based on language (text) use. The basic idea is to place some text from obvious to sickos, identify Which words, phrases, syntax and so on They use, then program the machine to spot them. We are doing something similar with facial recognition and gait analysis. The way we walk is like a fingerprint.

In emotional intelligence tests we find a lot of smart people (and dumb ones) do not get facial expressions as They are supposed to. Having seen many smiling assassins I'm not sure who is getting this wrong.

I'd Probably want to examine presuppositions on the bit lost in translation from the perspective did natural language is not as smart as we think anyway and May have a prime directive of confusion and deceit. And I miss Francis too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:56:27 AM UTC Chris Jenkins wrote:
What if the only way we could communicate was not understood by other software capable of emotions? Digital communication not convey tone now, imagine if they also lost nuance in translation?

I'm thinking about this because I have the conversations in this group often break into two people together to talk over. I wonder if the other speakers understand at all. If our words not only lost her tone, but also their native dialect; if it was something even the speaker does not understand before they can receive from another person, we would be able to communicate at all?

I wish Francisco were here to weigh; he would have insight I'd valuable as a native English speaker who has spent so much time in a country with a language other than their mother tongue to find. Gabby has been similar insight, how much time she spends in English with us, (and how many times have I asked if I missed a sense in translation), but I guess they are usually only fun poorly translated make my German , : D

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

The kind of smugness feel on much institutionalised religion can be seen in this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8acXl3qVs

Gabby's point on religion-politics crops up early in the discussion too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 3:01:13 AM UTC, archytas wrote:

I obviously agree RP. They are evidence of something, but rarely stand up to detailed analysis even in their own terms. The Christians may be Flavians conned by a Roman plot, Christ may not be a historical person but an invention, Islam may be from Berber Jews and so on. Make these texts in some way 'holy' perhaps as the word of god or an angel and hence he did come to speak to us. This is more evidence of human gullibility than anything else to me. And this doesn't mean the texts have nothing to offer.

Religion for me can't be a matter of smug satisfaction or rejection of counter-evidence as economics does through 'externalities'. Seeking is a presence I understand, not the sacred.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:42:27 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote:
Neil, I don't understand how scriptures can be termed evidence, I can quote from various scriptures but what is the use, to term them as evidence is not scientific.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:07 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote:
The Logos is God,^{[Jn 1:1]} as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."^[20:28] Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God."^[1:1] God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"^{[Jn 10:30]} and also, "the Father is greater than I."^[14:28] The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word.^[1:14] ^[14:6] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, distinguishable in thought yet not separable in fact.

No room for ego, arrogance or anything like it there.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote:
Over the years the word of God in reality is the essence of God.. the essence of what is said.. just what the essence of God is.. i have no clue other than it does exist.

What i feel is of great importance is to change the perspective of just who or what God is.. one thing i am sure of is the common perspective is not working..

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Molly <
...

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

I obviously agree RP. They are evidence of something, but rarely stand up to detailed analysis even in their own terms. The Christians may be Flavians conned by a Roman plot, Christ may not be a historical person but an invention, Islam may be from Berber Jews and so on. Make these texts in some way 'holy' perhaps as the word of god or an angel and hence he did come to speak to us. This is more evidence of human gullibility than anything else to me. And this doesn't mean the texts have nothing to offer.

Religion for me can't be a matter of smug satisfaction or rejection of counter-evidence as economics does through 'externalities'. Seeking is a presence I understand, not the sacred.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:42:27 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote:

Neil, I don't understand how scriptures can be termed evidence, I can quote from various scriptures but what is the use, to term them as evidence is not scientific.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:07 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote:
The Logos is God,^{[Jn 1:1]} as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."^[20:28] Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God."^[1:1] God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"^{[Jn 10:30]} and also, "the Father is greater than I."^[14:28] The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word.^[1:14] ^[14:6] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, distinguishable in thought yet not separable in fact.

No room for ego, arrogance or anything like it there.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote:
Over the years the word of God in reality is the essence of God.. the essence of what is said.. just what the essence of God is.. i have no clue other than it does exist.

What i feel is of great importance is to change the perspective of just who or what God is.. one thing i am sure of is the common perspective is not working..

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Molly <mollyb363@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

It isn't easy listening, authority imposed where there is none. I am not interested in anyone telling me what to do or how to view myself, and certainly am not looking for psychoanalysis. But I am interested in listening to others views when presented as their own, even when filled with dread and anger. I don't take it personally and wish the best for everyone.

I am interested in the Logos...the beginning word...the word as God, or the meaning that passes between. You hit the nail on the head there, Allan.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
That's rather close to Willard Quine Allan. The question is largely about who receives whom in arrogance. The ignorant are often the most arrogant of all.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 3:24:25 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
In christianity is the statement in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Sound familiar?

I read that or hear statements like that what i hear is people that have no clue and presenting double talk to appear to have an answer. Further more they want no answer so any other possibility is automatically rejected.

So if a possibility is presented it is rejected because for no other reason than it does not fit your perception.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Allan I rejected this answer because without the answer to the first question it makes no sense.
Allan, I don't know what you make of God's omnipotence, but for me he has the power to create without any raw material, unlike us poo
...

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung

"Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out"

As is clearly demonstrated by the attached English translation. :D

And yet, I wonder how careful we would be with our words if we were consciously aware they always had to be fed through a translator to reach someone else. And then I wonder why we don't realize that they already are, even when we're speaking in the same "Mother Tongue" (I love how that translated).

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:33 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

The German sounds somewhat more hostile than the translation Chris. There's some work on how tone of voice affects decision. Argument content rarely does well. Voice to text converters I've tried always fail (slightly better if grandpa leaves his teeth in). We do know bilingual (and multi) brains work differently than those with only one language. And little AI programmes outperform us on old arcade games and most of us at chess.

When it comes to talking to machines, natural language has been a pisser - though I hear claims we may be getting round this. Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out. Spoken language is noise-ridden, and even then maybe only ten percent of what humans communicate face to face.

Though we like to think picking up on nuance and emotion is smart, this may be very misguided - especially as we are so easily conned by liars, psychopaths and narcissists. Psychos do three times better with parole boards than ordinary criminals, suggesting something is lost in translation by worthies on parole boards. My daughters were even more successful with me.

We have machines working on Identifying sickos and psychos based on language (text) use. The basic idea is to place some text from obvious to sickos, identify Which words, phrases, syntax and so on They use, then program the machine to spot them. We are doing something similar with facial recognition and gait analysis. The way we walk is like a fingerprint.

In emotional intelligence tests we find a lot of smart people (and dumb ones) do not get facial expressions as They are supposed to. Having seen many smiling assassins I'm not sure who is getting this wrong.

I'd Probably want to examine presuppositions on the bit lost in translation from the perspective did natural language is not as smart as we think anyway and May have a prime directive of confusion and deceit. And I miss Francis too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:56:27 AM UTC Chris Jenkins wrote:
What if the only way we could communicate was not understood by other software capable of emotions? Digital communication not convey tone now, imagine if they also lost nuance in translation?

I'm thinking about this because I have the conversations in this group often break into two people together to talk over. I wonder if the other speakers understand at all. If our words not only lost her tone, but also their native dialect; if it was something even the speaker does not understand before they can receive from another person, we would be able to communicate at all?

I wish Francisco were here to weigh; he would have insight I'd valuable as a native English speaker who has spent so much time in a country with a language other than their mother tongue to find. Gabby has been similar insight, how much time she spends in English with us, (and how many times have I asked if I missed a sense in translation), but I guess they are usually only fun poorly translated make my German , : D

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22computer+emotion%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Gives an idea how much academic work is being done in the area.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 2:33:47 AM UTC, archytas wrote:

The German sounds somewhat more hostile than the translation Chris. There's some work on how tone of voice affects decision. Argument content rarely does well. Voice to text converters I've tried always fail (slightly better if grandpa leaves his teeth in). We do know bilingual (and multi) brains work differently than those with only one language. And little AI programmes outperform us on old arcade games and most of us at chess.

When it comes to talking to machines, natural language has been a pisser - though I hear claims we may be getting round this. Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out. Spoken language is noise-ridden, and even then maybe only ten percent of what humans communicate face to face.

Though we like to think picking up on nuance and emotion is smart, this may be very misguided - especially as we are so easily conned by liars, psychopaths and narcissists. Psychos do three times better with parole boards than ordinary criminals, suggesting something is lost in translation by worthies on parole boards. My daughters were even more successful with me.

We have machines working on Identifying sickos and psychos based on language (text) use. The basic idea is to place some text from obvious to sickos, identify Which words, phrases, syntax and so on They use, then program the machine to spot them. We are doing something similar with facial recognition and gait analysis. The way we walk is like a fingerprint.

In emotional intelligence tests we find a lot of smart people (and dumb ones) do not get facial expressions as They are supposed to. Having seen many smiling assassins I'm not sure who is getting this wrong.

I'd Probably want to examine presuppositions on the bit lost in translation from the perspective did natural language is not as smart as we think anyway and May have a prime directive of confusion and deceit. And I miss Francis too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:56:27 AM UTC Chris Jenkins wrote:
What if the only way we could communicate was not understood by other software capable of emotions? Digital communication not convey tone now, imagine if they also lost nuance in translation?

I'm thinking about this because I have the conversations in this group often break into two people together to talk over. I wonder if the other speakers understand at all. If our words not only lost her tone, but also their native dialect; if it was something even the speaker does not understand before they can receive from another person, we would be able to communicate at all?

I wish Francisco were here to weigh; he would have insight I'd valuable as a native English speaker who has spent so much time in a country with a language other than their mother tongue to find. Gabby has been similar insight, how much time she spends in English with us, (and how many times have I asked if I missed a sense in translation), but I guess they are usually only fun poorly translated make my German , : D

Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung

The German sounds somewhat more hostile than the translation Chris. There's some work on how tone of voice affects decision. Argument content rarely does well. Voice to text converters I've tried always fail (slightly better if grandpa leaves his teeth in). We do know bilingual (and multi) brains work differently than those with only one language. And little AI programmes outperform us on old arcade games and most of us at chess.

When it comes to talking to machines, natural language has been a pisser - though I hear claims we may be getting round this. Google translate and similar do a fair job, but if you translate to German and then back to English really significant nonsense comes out. Spoken language is noise-ridden, and even then maybe only ten percent of what humans communicate face to face.

Though we like to think picking up on nuance and emotion is smart, this may be very misguided - especially as we are so easily conned by liars, psychopaths and narcissists. Psychos do three times better with parole boards than ordinary criminals, suggesting something is lost in translation by worthies on parole boards. My daughters were even more successful with me.

We have machines working on Identifying sickos and psychos based on language (text) use. The basic idea is to place some text from obvious to sickos, identify Which words, phrases, syntax and so on They use, then program the machine to spot them. We are doing something similar with facial recognition and gait analysis. The way we walk is like a fingerprint.

In emotional intelligence tests we find a lot of smart people (and dumb ones) do not get facial expressions as They are supposed to. Having seen many smiling assassins I'm not sure who is getting this wrong.

I'd Probably want to examine presuppositions on the bit lost in translation from the perspective did natural language is not as smart as we think anyway and May have a prime directive of confusion and deceit. And I miss Francis too.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:56:27 AM UTC Chris Jenkins wrote:

What if the only way we could communicate was not understood by other software capable of emotions? Digital communication not convey tone now, imagine if they also lost nuance in translation?

I'm thinking about this because I have the conversations in this group often break into two people together to talk over. I wonder if the other speakers understand at all. If our words not only lost her tone, but also their native dialect; if it was something even the speaker does not understand before they can receive from another person, we would be able to communicate at all?

I wish Francisco were here to weigh; he would have insight I'd valuable as a native English speaker who has spent so much time in a country with a language other than their mother tongue to find. Gabby has been similar insight, how much time she spends in English with us, (and how many times have I asked if I missed a sense in translation), but I guess they are usually only fun poorly translated make my German , : D

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Arrogance is a tough one RP. In humble relations someone is generally being mugged unless their is reciprocity. Self-deception plays a role too, as does the 'face work' of those only humble in political correctness. Questioning is often perceived as a hostile intrusion. Mutual understanding is rarely the goal in human interrelations. Gabby is right there is a lot that needs kicking away, yet how to do this without falling out, how to get to the 'real' if we have to expend so much energy maintaining cosiness?

Words are a small part of the word. Molly sounds quite arrogant in denying any base for it in Christianity. This is small beer and I catch myself at similar. I don't have faith in old script or most of what we produce now - I can have plenty in Molly's difference from me and RP as a friend. Much economics is polemic and can be seen as rhetorical sword fighting over nothing relevant.

It's not that unusual to find physicists talking about the cosmic code and various dodges they use to interpret it. The latest is the holographic waffle I gave a taste of - the best writer is called Smoot. I don't know enough physics, but still feel (arrogantly) that they are missing something. And I feel the same on what we all say. Pol hits a lot of the right notes in the other current thread.

When we are all coming up short in argument I don't think there is much point claiming the other is 'resisting conversion'. Bible quotes may have even less effect on me than RP!

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 6:41:49 PM UTC, RP Singh wrote:

It is very rare for a person to know when he is arrogant, such insight can come only to a modest person who is arrogant only occasionally.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:02 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
That's rather close to Willard Quine Allan. The question is largely about who receives whom in arrogance. The ignorant are often the most arrogant of all.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 3:24:25 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
In christianity is the statement in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Sound familiar?

I read that or hear statements like that what i hear is people that have no clue and presenting double talk to appear to have an answer. Further more they want no answer so any other possibility is automatically rejected.

So if a possibility is presented it is rejected because for no other reason than it does not fit your perception.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Allan I rejected this answer because without the answer to the first question it makes no sense.
Allan, I don't know what you make of God's omnipotence, but for me he has the power to create without any raw material, unlike us poor people needing God made sperms and eggs to create a life.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
RP how can you expect an answer when you automatically reject the answer you are given? Unless it fits the answer you want to hear..
Let me ask you a question. You say the universe was created from the word of God. What is contained within the Word of God that is able to create the matter needed to create our universe?

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

You have referred to my second question , but what about the first.
I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that God is speaking to us for nowhere you have given the incident purporting that he so spoke.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Molly <mollyb363@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you regard other people as God, RP?

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 8:19:23 AM UTC-5, RP Singh wrote:
Is it possible that you regard your late mentor as God and it was his voice you were talking about?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Molly <mollyb363@gmail.com> wrote:
It is an interesting notion to ponder, how does God speak to us? My friend and mentor recently spoke about it to all of his visitors before passing away last summer. I told him that if the measure of whether or not a person can hear God speaking is all of the good they have done in the world, then he had done some life long listening. He taught us all how to collaborate and build consensus, create systems and institutions that work for people, organize communities and make them good places to raise our families. Quite a lifetime achievement.

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:27:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
Does the timetable show when the next train is coming Facil?

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 2:27:14 AM UTC, facilitator wrote:
First you say God is a spirit then you want me to give you times when God came down. Which?

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 6:57:45 PM UTC-5, RP Singh wrote:
Jesus, Mohammad were prophets, so tell us when God came down.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:56 PM, 'facilitator' via "Minds Eye" <mind...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
God comes "down" all the time. In fact, that would have to be an attribute of an omnipotent. We are the ones limited by time and space. Giving God an image of our viewpoint is called an "Idol".

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 12:25:29 PM UTC-5, RP Singh wrote:
I don't think God has ever come down to talk to man, so as a necessity we have to give him an image according to our viewpoint.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

...

Mind's Eye Götterdämmerung

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Neil, I don't understand how scriptures can be termed evidence, I can quote from various scriptures but what is the use, to term them as evidence is not scientific.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:07 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:

A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote:
The Logos is God,^{[Jn 1:1]} as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."^[20:28] Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God."^[1:1] God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"^{[Jn 10:30]} and also, "the Father is greater than I."^[14:28] The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word.^[1:14] ^[14:6] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, distinguishable in thought yet not separable in fact.

No room for ego, arrogance or anything like it there.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote:
Over the years the word of God in reality is the essence of God.. the essence of what is said.. just what the essence of God is.. i have no clue other than it does exist.

What i feel is of great importance is to change the perspective of just who or what God is.. one thing i am sure of is the common perspective is not working..

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Molly <mollyb363@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

It isn't easy listening, authority imposed where there is none. I am not interested in anyone telling me what to do or how to view myself, and certainly am not looking for psychoanalysis. But I am interested in listening to others views when presented as their own, even when filled with dread and anger. I don't take it personally and wish the best for everyone.

I am interested in the Logos...the beginning word...the word as God, or the meaning that passes between. You hit the nail on the head there, Allan.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
That's rather close to Willard Quine Allan. The question is largely about who receives whom in arrogance. The ignorant are often the most arrogant of all.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 3:24:25 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
In christianity is the statement in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Sound familiar?

I read that or hear statements like that what i hear is people that have no clue and presenting double talk to appear to have an answer. Further more they want no answer so any other possibility is automatically rejected.

So if a possibility is presented it is rejected because for no other reason than it does not fit your perception.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Allan I rejected this answer because without the answer to the first question it makes no sense.
Allan, I don't know what you make of God's omnipotence, but for me he has the power to create without any raw material, unlike us poor people needing God made sperms and eggs to create a life.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
RP how can you expect an answer when you automatically reject the answer you are given? Unless it fits the answer you want to hear..
Let me ask you a question. You say the universe was created from the word of God. What is contained within the Word of God that is able to create the matter needed to create our universe?

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

You have referred to my second question , but what about the first.
I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that God is speaking to us for nowhere you have given the incident purporting that he so spoke.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Molly <
...

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote:

The Logos is God,^{[Jn 1:1]} as Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."^[20:28] Yet the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was with God."^[1:1] God and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"^{[Jn 10:30]} and also, "the Father is greater than I."^[14:28] The Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ not only gives God's Word to us humans; he is the Word.^[1:14] ^[14:6] He is the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, distinguishable in thought yet not separable in fact.

No room for ego, arrogance or anything like it there.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote:
Over the years the word of God in reality is the essence of God.. the essence of what is said.. just what the essence of God is.. i have no clue other than it does exist.

What i feel is of great importance is to change the perspective of just who or what God is.. one thing i am sure of is the common perspective is not working..

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: Molly <mollyb363@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

It isn't easy listening, authority imposed where there is none. I am not interested in anyone telling me what to do or how to view myself, and certainly am not looking for psychoanalysis. But I am interested in listening to others views when presented as their own, even when filled with dread and anger. I don't take it personally and wish the best for everyone.

I am interested in the Logos...the beginning word...the word as God, or the meaning that passes between. You hit the nail on the head there, Allan.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:32:37 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
That's rather close to Willard Quine Allan. The question is largely about who receives whom in arrogance. The ignorant are often the most arrogant of all.

On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 3:24:25 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
In christianity is the statement in the beginning was the word and the word was with God. Sound familiar?

I read that or hear statements like that what i hear is people that have no clue and presenting double talk to appear to have an answer. Further more they want no answer so any other possibility is automatically rejected.

So if a possibility is presented it is rejected because for no other reason than it does not fit your perception.

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

Allan I rejected this answer because without the answer to the first question it makes no sense.
Allan, I don't know what you make of God's omnipotence, but for me he has the power to create without any raw material, unlike us poor people needing God made sperms and eggs to create a life.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
RP how can you expect an answer when you automatically reject the answer you are given? Unless it fits the answer you want to hear..
Let me ask you a question. You say the universe was created from the word of God. What is contained within the Word of God that is able to create the matter needed to create our universe?

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com>
To: Minds Eye <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Presence

You have referred to my second question , but what about the first.
I don't understand how you draw the conclusion that God is speaking to us for nowhere you have given the incident purporting that he so spoke.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Molly <
...

Blog Archive

Saturday, February 28, 2015