2022-07-13 09:46:53 <dlowe       > books 2-5 are amazing.  Starts to sag a bit on book 6 imho
2022-07-13 11:08:15 <KipIngram   > When did Jordan stop writing them?
2022-07-13 11:08:35 <KipIngram   > I'm only 3-4 chapters in, and already I very much like Rand, so it's a good start.
2022-07-13 11:20:46 <KipIngram   > imode: In PlanckForth, aren't I seeing some bits in there where he "re-uses" parts of the initial code and just applies a new name to the same code?
2022-07-13 11:20:59 <KipIngram   > I'm trying to get a feel for how much "overhead" there is in this approach.
2022-07-13 11:21:37 <imode       > I imagine for convenience.
2022-07-13 11:21:42 <KipIngram   > Of course I guess there wouldn't have to be any - you could always arrange it so that once you had the final system in place you then over-wrote and re-used the initial content.
2022-07-13 11:21:52 <KipIngram   > The space occupied by the initial content, that is.
2022-07-13 11:22:01 <dlowe       > He only failed to finish the last book I think
2022-07-13 11:22:21 <KipIngram   > Ok.  So it's far and away "mostly Jordan" then?
2022-07-13 11:22:28 <dlowe       > yeah, definitely
2022-07-13 11:23:01 <KipIngram   > I have recent experience with series "sagging" in the later phases.  A year ago or so I started reading The Expanse.  And also watching it, such that the TV show progress ran a little behind the books.
2022-07-13 11:23:13 <KipIngram   > Really, really enjoyed it through the first six books.
2022-07-13 11:23:22 <KipIngram   > And the first two seasons of the show were fantastic.
2022-07-13 11:23:30 <thrig       > a lot of Anime starts out good then kinda eh
2022-07-13 11:23:34 <KipIngram   > But then I started book seven and just couldn't continue.
2022-07-13 11:23:55 <KipIngram   > There was a very big and very sudden "change" in the situation that I just coudn't swallow.
2022-07-13 11:24:07 <KipIngram   > Maybe I'll go back someday, but... not yet.
2022-07-13 11:24:25 <dlowe       > That's my entire experience of reading the Hyperion series
2022-07-13 11:24:32 <dlowe       > but I slogged through it anyway
2022-07-13 11:24:43 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I'm partially through that too.
2022-07-13 11:24:56 <KipIngram   > You're right - that one definitely had a "shift" in it too.
2022-07-13 11:25:10 <dlowe       > a few of them
2022-07-13 11:25:36 <KipIngram   > The first, original Dune book is outstanding.  And then that one goes to crap later on too.
2022-07-13 11:25:56 <dlowe       > I liked God Emperor
2022-07-13 11:26:07 <KipIngram   > Yeah, that one declined gradually.
2022-07-13 11:26:19 <KipIngram   > The first sequels were "ok."
2022-07-13 11:26:29 <KipIngram   > I just remember being kind of tired of it all by the end.
2022-07-13 11:27:03 <dlowe       > it's like music bands - you spend 10 years making your first album, then you're forced to make your second in one year
2022-07-13 11:27:10 <KipIngram   > :-)
2022-07-13 11:27:12 <KipIngram   > Yeah.
2022-07-13 11:27:37 <KipIngram   > And then people criticize you for "selling out."  Meanwhile you have a mortgage and kids to raise too, just like everyone else.
2022-07-13 11:27:51 <dlowe       > Herbert put all his juice in the first book I think
2022-07-13 11:28:03 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2022-07-13 11:28:13 <KipIngram   > I rank OG Dune up near the top of best scifi books.
2022-07-13 11:28:25 <dlowe       > but there wasn't anything left for later
2022-07-13 11:28:39 <KipIngram   > And the whole notion of the Butlerian Jihad was inspired.
2022-07-13 11:28:57 <dlowe       > it's starting to seem more like a good idea every day :p
2022-07-13 11:29:06 <KipIngram   > That line - "Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of a man's mind" - I wonder if we don't need to learn a lesson from that one.
2022-07-13 11:29:20 <thrig       > humans? learn a lesson?
2022-07-13 11:29:33 <KipIngram   > I feel sure we're going to cause ourselves at least some problems with AI.  Not "the machines take over" problems - just social difficulties.
2022-07-13 11:30:05 <KipIngram   > I think we're kind of rushing into that stuff without thinking it through carefully enough
2022-07-13 11:30:21 <dlowe       > we have already replaced a ton of humans with machines. The experience is mostly worse now, but so much cheaper.
2022-07-13 11:30:28 <thrig       > something something profit > wisdom
2022-07-13 11:30:29 <KipIngram   > Right.
2022-07-13 11:30:37 <KipIngram   > There is definitely that incentive.
2022-07-13 11:30:57 <dlowe       > but those human interactions were important for our wellbeing
2022-07-13 11:31:04 <KipIngram   > And so long as we only automate away "some" of the jobs, we can deal with it.   But what do we do when we automate away so much of it that there's no longer enough job opportunities?
2022-07-13 11:31:09 <dlowe       > and what happens when no one has something to contribute that can't be automated?
2022-07-13 11:31:15 <dlowe       > lol
2022-07-13 11:31:22 <dlowe       > more than job opportunities
2022-07-13 11:31:24 <KipIngram   > A economy is not only supposed to produce wealth - it's also supposed to distribute it in some reasonable way.
2022-07-13 11:31:38 <dlowe       > why be an artist while AI art generation exists
2022-07-13 11:31:45 <KipIngram   > We're going to rig things so socialism is the only option left.
2022-07-13 11:31:56 <KipIngram   > Either that or revolt.
2022-07-13 11:32:11 <dlowe       > penny arcade called it "they've summoned a demon who gnaws at the heart of what it means to be alive"
2022-07-13 11:32:15 <KipIngram   > People just aren't going to shrug and say "Oh welll, I guess I don't get anything."
2022-07-13 11:32:33 <dlowe       > it's not just getting stuff, though, it's giving stuff too
2022-07-13 11:32:35 <KipIngram   > Oh, that's a good quote.
2022-07-13 11:32:49 <KipIngram   > Yes - the psychological fulfillment of "contributing."
2022-07-13 11:32:50 <dlowe       > what happens when people don't have anything to give
2022-07-13 11:32:56 <thrig       > *most people. a few go full Buddhist forest wandering
2022-07-13 11:32:57 <dlowe       > socialism won't help that
2022-07-13 11:33:07 <KipIngram   > You're totally right,
2022-07-13 11:34:00 <KipIngram   > Anyway, I don't think this means we "don't progress" - it just should mean we do it "carefully."   But that's not what the headlong rush for profit incentifies.
2022-07-13 11:34:31 <dlowe       > in Dune, the jihad forced society to focus on developing human potential
2022-07-13 11:34:53 <KipIngram   > Yes.  That was "the lesson."
2022-07-13 11:35:19 <KipIngram   > I think we're both looking at it pretty much the same way.
2022-07-13 11:35:42 <KipIngram   > And notice they still had plenty of tech.
2022-07-13 11:35:50 <KipIngram   > Only certain kinds of tech were barred.
2022-07-13 11:36:09 <dlowe       > so their tech, I think, were *extensions* of human capability rather than *replacements*
2022-07-13 11:36:15 <dlowe       > I think it's an important distinction
2022-07-13 11:36:17 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2022-07-13 11:36:25 <KipIngram   > The quote specified image of a man's MIND.
2022-07-13 11:36:27 <dlowe       > robot exoskeletons instead of robot slaves
2022-07-13 11:36:45 <KipIngram   > The guidance remained human.
2022-07-13 11:37:10 <dlowe       > evolutionarily they would get chewed up by faster smarter military robots :p
2022-07-13 11:37:17 <dlowe       > nom nom nom
2022-07-13 11:38:49 <dlowe       > "reflections on moloch" is one of the best essays ever and refers to this unfortunate race to the bottom
2022-07-13 11:39:09 <KipIngram   > I'll look that up.
2022-07-13 11:40:25 <KipIngram   > Certain aspects of this sort of thing were part of the Unabomber's mentality.  He actually had some valid points - just jumped way off into "bad implementation" of how to combat it.
2022-07-13 11:42:24 <KipIngram   > There was a similar kind of thing in The Matrix.  If you look, they just slaughtered a lot of innocent humans in their quest against the machines.
2022-07-13 11:43:18 <dlowe       > most action movies have a lot of collateral damage
2022-07-13 11:43:30 <KipIngram   > Sure.  I love the movie.  :-)
2022-07-13 11:43:37 <dlowe       > kudos to the MCU for pointing it out tho
2022-07-13 11:43:47 <KipIngram   > So I don't dwell on that any more than I can help.
2022-07-13 11:44:18 <KipIngram   > The Matrix is one that I haul out and just do periodic re-watches of, just to keep it fresh.
2022-07-13 11:44:26 <KipIngram   > The first one - I don't have a lot of interest in the sequels.
2022-07-13 11:44:30 <dlowe       > the idea is that they're desperately trying to survive in an ultimately uncontrollable situation, so they're not accountable for most of that
2022-07-13 11:44:35 <KipIngram   > Except Monica Bellucci is hot hot hot...
2022-07-13 11:44:55 <dlowe       > the sequels had one important bit of information - programs have to have a purpose to avoid getting reaped
2022-07-13 11:45:22 <KipIngram   > Oh, that kind of ties in to the other conversation, about people contributing.
2022-07-13 11:45:23 <dlowe       > logical conclusion is that the machines were keeping the humans around as purpose-giving entities
2022-07-13 11:46:02 <dlowe       > Morpheus was just wrong and uneducated about thermodynamics when he said, authoritatively, that they were using humans as batteries
2022-07-13 11:46:20 <KipIngram   > Yeah, that never worked completely well.
2022-07-13 11:46:40 <KipIngram   > But then, neither does a warp drive.
2022-07-13 11:46:56 <dlowe       > My head canon is that the machines derived from early 21-century AI systems who were given the goal to maximize user engagement with the site
2022-07-13 11:47:03 <KipIngram   > So I just suspended disbelief on that bit.
2022-07-13 11:47:21 <KipIngram   > Ah.  Ok, that could work.
2022-07-13 11:47:40 <dlowe       > avoid our ads now, humans!
2022-07-13 11:48:21 <thrig       > easily thwarted by Chrome being terribly slow on the 2009 macbook
2022-07-13 11:48:55 <dlowe       > no Chrome in 1999
2022-07-13 11:49:13 <KipIngram   > One silly question I pondered was "how do drugs work" in the matrix?  I'm talking recreational drugs.  Did the Matrix  just generate the sensations that that particular drug was supposed to produce?  Or did it literally track the production of the drug in the Matrix and when it was consumed pump the proper chemicals into the human?
2022-07-13 11:49:48 <KipIngram   > What about reproduction?  Did a little robot go collect the sperm from this pod and carry it over to that other pod?  Or pump it through pluming or something?
2022-07-13 11:49:56 <KipIngram   > plumbing
2022-07-13 11:50:09 <KipIngram   > There are a lot of little "implementation" details like that that just are glossed over.
2022-07-13 11:51:37 <dlowe       > "let the fanfic sort it out"
2022-07-13 11:51:42 <KipIngram   > :-)
2022-07-13 11:53:22 <KipIngram   > Anyway, The Matrix and Highlander are the main two movies that I cycle back around to every so often.
2022-07-13 11:53:32 <thrig       > : apply-drugs ... ;
2022-07-13 11:53:42 <KipIngram   > Highlander is honestly a pretty "B grade" movie.  But I just am very fond of it.
2022-07-13 11:54:26 <KipIngram   > And once again don't care at all for the sequels.
2022-07-13 11:55:15 <KipIngram   > In both cases, the fact that sequels even exist implies things are very contrived.  Both of those original movies end in more or less "total victory."
2022-07-13 12:06:35 <KipIngram   > There's a lot hidden under that apply-drugs routine.  To implement it physically, the thing would have to track the whole life history of the drugs, so it would know exactly what chemicals to shoot the human up with.
2022-07-13 12:07:31 <KipIngram   > Same for food, actually - different foods have different nutrients.
2022-07-13 12:07:43 <thrig       > well let the INTERN handle it over the summer
2022-07-13 12:08:37 <KipIngram   > And they'd definitely be compromising optimality to realize the effects of human choices.  Instead of keeping the whole herd optimally nourished, they'd be depriving some and glutting others, tracking the simulation.
2022-07-13 12:08:54 <thrig       > games like Dwarf Fortress or CDDA are trying
2022-07-13 12:10:49 <KipIngram   > Maybe that's part of us having rejected the utopia matrix.
2022-07-13 12:11:08 <KipIngram   > Those flaws were considered "necessary" for acceptance of the situation.
2022-07-13 12:12:06 <KipIngram   > I think they were on to something there - I think a lot of times people will "foul up paradise" just to have some drama in their existence.
2022-07-13 12:12:52 <KipIngram   > We want to solve problems - we'll create the problems if we have to in order to have the opportunity.
2022-07-13 12:13:22 <KipIngram   > Or something like that.
2022-07-13 12:23:35 <dlowe       > immune systems expect germs and will increase their sensitivity until they hallucinate germs
2022-07-13 12:23:55 <dlowe       > cats are so sensitive to motion they'll hallucinate that
2022-07-13 12:24:40 <dlowe       > isolated neurons expect responses from other neurons and will amp up their sensitivity and output voltage until they kill themselves
2022-07-13 12:57:10 <dlowe       > anyway, maybe humans expect a certain amount of conflict and will up their sensitivity to drama until they get the predicted amount
2022-07-13 12:58:16 <dlowe       > I read somewhere that brains are almost entirely prediction machines and all our actions and thoughts are attempts to bring the world to align with the predicted state.
2022-07-13 12:58:47 <dlowe       > So if you're hungry, it violates the prediction of satiation, you act to bring the world into alignment by eating.
2022-07-13 12:59:08 <thrig       > gut bacteria might also have something to do with that
2022-07-13 13:01:19 <KipIngram   > dlowe: I think there's a lot about that research that's right, but I also think there are aspects of our "minds" that we're fairly clueless about.
2022-07-13 13:02:11 <KipIngram   > I mean, why aren't we just unconscious robots?  How does "awareness" even work, in terms of the laws of physics?  I really haven't been able to buy the emergence thing - for something to emerge there's got to be *something* in the foundation for it to be built on.
2022-07-13 13:02:58 <KipIngram   > Water is nothing like hydrogen or oxygen; its behavior is 'emergent'.  But at least it's all a consequence of quantum electrodynamics.
2022-07-13 13:03:11 <KipIngram   > A theoretically "model-able" consequence.
2022-07-13 13:03:37 <KipIngram   > Where's the theory that has self-awareness as a model-able consequence?
2022-07-13 13:03:37 <dlowe       > My pet theory is that consciousness is the feeling of memories being created
2022-07-13 13:04:02 <KipIngram   > Memory probably does have something to do with it; I'd be surprised if it didn't.  But why are there any "feelings" at all?
2022-07-13 13:04:10 <KipIngram   > Why not just a dead sequence of physical events?
2022-07-13 13:04:17 <dlowe       > there may be a failure to store the memories once created, like blackouts
2022-07-13 13:04:27 <dlowe       > but you don't remember stuff if you're not conscious
2022-07-13 13:05:00 <dlowe       > and episodic memory also includes all senses, plus attention
2022-07-13 13:05:16 <KipIngram   > All the science is capable of predicting is that dead sequence of events - it in no way predicts the awareness.
2022-07-13 13:05:19 <KipIngram   > Not even close.
2022-07-13 13:07:19 <dlowe       > Now you're just talking about qualia
2022-07-13 13:09:00 <dlowe       > In one of Peter Watts' books, he imagines a future where we make AIs that bootstrap themselves into superintelligence, and we ask them what consciousness is, and they say "You wouldn't understand"
2022-07-13 13:09:01 <KipIngram   > Well, yeah - that's the name.
2022-07-13 13:09:24 <KipIngram   > My point is that I see no "indication" of such things happening in the most fundamental laws of physics.
2022-07-13 13:09:36 <KipIngram   > Those laws are most just differential equations.
2022-07-13 13:10:26 <KipIngram   > Anyway, I don't really want to get into any haggle over it - people usually find my thoughts about it controversial, but no one's talked me out of them yet.
2022-07-13 13:10:37 <KipIngram   > And I usually wind up hearing the same arguments over again.  :-)
2022-07-13 13:10:52 <dlowe       > either way, it's complicated
2022-07-13 13:10:55 <KipIngram   > I just regard the whole "emergent consciousness" argument as more hand waving than anything else.
2022-07-13 13:10:59 <KipIngram   > Yes it is.
2022-07-13 13:11:21 <KipIngram   > It makes me think of that cartoon, with the blackboard that has "and then a miracle occurs" on it for "step 2."
2022-07-13 13:11:22 <dlowe       > I regard complex probability conjugation as handwaving.  Seems to work, though.
2022-07-13 13:11:38 <KipIngram   > https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d6/e7/54/d6e754d24aaef324c1595e68583ace7a.jpg
2022-07-13 13:11:51 <KipIngram   > But it's not - it's MATH.
2022-07-13 13:11:54 <KipIngram   > It's quite rigorous.
2022-07-13 13:12:08 <KipIngram   > And that's what modern AIs actually "do."
2022-07-13 13:12:12 <dlowe       > I mean, we apply probability to (say) decks of cards because it's impractical to model the exact behavior of every card in the shuffle
2022-07-13 13:12:22 <KipIngram   > I've often thought that instead of "AI" it should be called "advanced probabilistic algorithms."
2022-07-13 13:12:43 <dlowe       > but that doesn't mean that there isn't a deterministic classical process working on those cards the whole time
2022-07-13 13:12:45 <KipIngram   > It may be impractical, but it's not impossible.
2022-07-13 13:13:06 <KipIngram   > And if you go to the trouble to model it, the probability results will turn out to be very very close to right.
2022-07-13 13:13:11 <KipIngram   > Statistical thermodynamics.
2022-07-13 13:13:27 <KipIngram   > That would be the most extreme case of it, where the random fluctuations are so small they may as well not exist.
2022-07-13 13:13:30 <dlowe       > Sure, but it's not the probabilities that are real, it's the cards
2022-07-13 13:13:34 <KipIngram   > The resulting laws look "precise."
2022-07-13 13:13:44 <KipIngram   > Yeah.
2022-07-13 13:14:09 <KipIngram   > There is no "temperature" or "pressure," really.
2022-07-13 13:14:20 <KipIngram   > Just molecules swatting the walls.
2022-07-13 13:14:42 <dlowe       > so I postulate that underlying the veil of our quantum covariant variables is some complex process underlying the math, much like simple probability is with the combinatorial explosion of a card deck
2022-07-13 13:14:46 <eris[m]     > are we talking about consciousness?
2022-07-13 13:15:02 <dlowe       > we were. now we're talking about handwaving
2022-07-13 13:15:09 <eris[m]     > awww
2022-07-13 13:15:16 <dlowe       > it's still in scope I think :D
2022-07-13 13:15:26 <eris[m]     > consciousness is a fun topic
2022-07-13 13:15:44 <dlowe       > I can't find it now, but smbc had a comic arguing "qualia is shitty perception" that was brilliant
2022-07-13 13:16:23 <eris[m]     > i've never really cared for qualia
2022-07-13 13:16:54 <dlowe       > the argument was that if everyone had a perceptual super-organ that could completely encompass objective reality, then there would be no disagreement about the object's attributes whatsoever
2022-07-13 13:17:19 <eris[m]     > i cant be sure the way i percieve is correspondent to anyone else so why bother with categorising it tbh
2022-07-13 13:17:38 <thrig       > no disagreement, except among lojbanists
2022-07-13 13:17:45 <KipIngram   > We've agreed on a set of labels, that reliably captures when we're talking about some particular thing.
2022-07-13 13:17:47 <dlowe       > the idea is that it's different in some way from being told about it
2022-07-13 13:18:07 <KipIngram   > Donald Hoffman.  He has some interesting writings on this.
2022-07-13 13:18:10 <dlowe       > thrig: on the contrary, lojbanists are the most educated on this due to the bear goo metaphysics
2022-07-13 13:18:11 <eris[m]     > KipIngram: not reliably :P
2022-07-13 13:18:18 <KipIngram   > He relates our pereptions to a computer desktop.
2022-07-13 13:18:27 <KipIngram   > We interact with the icons on the display, not with the guts of the computer.
2022-07-13 13:18:40 <eris[m]     > speak for yourself
2022-07-13 13:18:42 <KipIngram   > He contends that we perceive the icons the way we do just because that's how we evolved.
2022-07-13 13:18:50 <KipIngram   > We evolved an "effective" set of perceptions.
2022-07-13 13:18:52 <thrig       > I saw a lot of disagreement on the bear goo page
2022-07-13 13:19:02 <eris[m]     > i flip the bits manually
2022-07-13 13:19:07 <KipIngram   > :-)
2022-07-13 13:19:12 <KipIngram   > You demigod.
2022-07-13 13:19:22 <eris[m]     > whats the bear goo metaphysics?
2022-07-13 13:19:49 <dlowe       > lojban is a constructed language which is syntactically unambiguous. It also attempts to be precise in otherways though.
2022-07-13 13:20:16 <eris[m]     > yee, ive heard of lojban
2022-07-13 13:20:21 <eris[m]     > i tend to the other side of conlanguages
2022-07-13 13:20:21 <dlowe       > One of the words is 'cribe' which means to be a bear
2022-07-13 13:20:35 <KipIngram   > lojban - looks like a roadsign on the highway to Newspeak.  :-)
2022-07-13 13:20:42 <KipIngram   > Or could be.
2022-07-13 13:20:48 <dlowe       > another word, 'lo' was originally intended to apply to something that was "really" something
2022-07-13 13:20:56 <KipIngram   > I'd never heard of that - reading about it now.
2022-07-13 13:20:59 <dlowe       > whereas 'le' was something that could be called something for convenience
2022-07-13 13:21:14 <dlowe       > so the question is, what sorts of things can 'lo cribe' apply to
2022-07-13 13:21:30 <dlowe       > this turns into theseus's ship real fast
2022-07-13 13:21:55 <dlowe       > "a bear" is a creature. What if it's missing a leg, is it still a bear?
2022-07-13 13:21:59 <eris[m]     > ah, a question of essence
2022-07-13 13:22:01 <dlowe       > what if it's been smashed to paste
2022-07-13 13:22:19 <eris[m]     > yea, its all about essence
2022-07-13 13:22:49 <eris[m]     > my argument here would be that bearness isnt quantitative so you cant be really bear
2022-07-13 13:23:01 <eris[m]     > but just now i remembered that bearness can be quantitive
2022-07-13 13:23:05 <eris[m]     > ie. red panda
2022-07-13 13:23:08 <dlowe       > lojban avoids this problem in other domains.  for instance, "zasti" to be real, explicitly defines a metaphysic by which the reality is established
2022-07-13 13:23:48 <eris[m]     > wonder how lojbanists write poetry
2022-07-13 13:24:01 <eris[m]     > is there a translation of the Daodejing in lojban?
2022-07-13 13:24:02 <dlowe       > same as any other language
2022-07-13 13:24:05 <dlowe       > there is
2022-07-13 13:24:47 <dlowe       > my reaction is that people have mistaken lojban for a reality schema rather than a protocol for communication
2022-07-13 13:25:09 <dlowe       > and it doesn't matter if it is "really" a thing or not as long as the speaker's intent is to communicate that
2022-07-13 13:25:46 <eris[m]     > dlowe: how?
2022-07-13 13:26:11 <eris[m]     > lojban is meant to be unambigous, right?
2022-07-13 13:26:12 <thrig       > https://xkcd.com/191
2022-07-13 13:26:18 <dlowe       > *syntactically* unambiguous
2022-07-13 13:26:29 <eris[m]     > yes
2022-07-13 13:26:37 <dlowe       > given a lojban sentence, it will produce exactly one parse tree
2022-07-13 13:26:44 <eris[m]     > the daodejing is by design syntactically ambigous
2022-07-13 13:26:56 <eris[m]     > it is written in ancient chinese
2022-07-13 13:27:02 <dlowe       > most languages are syntactically ambiguous
2022-07-13 13:27:15 <eris[m]     > there is a sense of scale here
2022-07-13 13:27:15 <dlowe       > witness the different readings of "pretty little girls school"
2022-07-13 13:27:36 <eris[m]     > there is very little grammar in ancient chinese, afaik
2022-07-13 13:27:58 <dlowe       > a school for pretty little girls?  For girls that are pretty little?  A pretty little school for girls?
2022-07-13 13:28:14 <KipIngram   > This is a good book:
2022-07-13 13:28:16 <KipIngram   > https://www.amazon.com/Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Mankinds-Invention/dp/0805080120
2022-07-13 13:28:43 <KipIngram   > Goes through all kinds of history of how language has "grown up."
2022-07-13 13:29:24 <dlowe       > but the individual words are still fairly ambiguous
2022-07-13 13:29:31 <eris[m]     > dlowe: you're missing a piece of punctuation that clears one ambiguituity
2022-07-13 13:29:40 <dlowe       > what's "pretty"? what's a "girl"? what's a "school"?
2022-07-13 13:29:54 <thrig       > the lojban book does that sentence like 40 different ways
2022-07-13 13:30:02 <KipIngram   > Whatever we agree they are.  :-)
2022-07-13 13:30:09 <KipIngram   > They're labels.
2022-07-13 13:30:15 <dlowe       > right.  It's a protocol, not a schema
2022-07-13 13:31:16 <KipIngram   > One interesting bit that book highlights is that ever since there have been "learned people" there's been a concern among the "previous generation" that the "new generation" was "destroying the language."
2022-07-13 13:31:28 <KipIngram   > Just over and over and over again - with quotes from various such people.
2022-07-13 13:32:39 <KipIngram   > Most of the languages we're familiar with (we in the west) all stemmed from "proto indo european."  The book goes through proposed mechanisms for how aspects of a language are gradually lost and how new ones creep in in various regions.
2022-07-13 13:32:51 <KipIngram   > until the regions diverge so far that you can't call it the same language anymore.
2022-07-13 13:33:00 <eris[m]     > this is true of everything really :)
2022-07-13 13:33:17 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I would think so too.
2022-07-13 13:33:32 <eris[m]     > KipIngram: the few exceptions to the rule are quite fun!
2022-07-13 13:33:49 <KipIngram   > In many cases the changes start by seizing upon ways to reduce the labor of speaking.
2022-07-13 13:33:57 <KipIngram   > Substitute less complex sounds for more complex ones.
2022-07-13 13:34:16 <KipIngram   > Someone starts that, and sometimes it "catches on."
2022-07-13 13:34:44 <eris[m]     > finnish and hungarian are uralic
2022-07-13 13:34:45 <KipIngram   > Sometimes once a sound is gone it never comes back.
2022-07-13 13:34:56 <KipIngram   > Sometimes it does - depends on the sound.
2022-07-13 13:35:19 <lispmacs[work]> sorry, but I was just wondering if there might be a better channel for this long discussion. I kept getting alerts of channel activity but it is not the usual interesting Forth discussions I'm expecting
2022-07-13 13:35:25 <KipIngram   > https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uy82jYCOFXQ/T1bph8a9hyI/AAAAAAAAADg/txCq3Z_KQmg/s1600/branches.jpg
2022-07-13 13:35:43 <KipIngram   > Oh man, sorry.  Yeah, we're way off track.
2022-07-13 13:35:49 <eris[m]     > georgian is kartevellian
2022-07-13 13:37:06 <KipIngram   > I think I started it with some offhand throwaway remark I'd have to scroll back to remember now.  Hard to see these things coming sometime.  You were more than patient, actually.
2022-07-13 13:47:39 <dlowe       > it's actually one long collaboratively created forth program with some *very* complex word definitions.
2022-07-13 14:27:11 <KipIngram   > imode: Any thoughts on how minimal / extravagant the set of pre-defined one-char operations in PlanckForth is?
2022-07-13 14:27:21 <imode       > it's pretty minimal, tbh,
2022-07-13 14:27:27 <KipIngram   > Sounded like you've scrutinized it pretty closely.
2022-07-13 14:27:31 <imode       > I couldn't find a smaller set without building a BF clone.
2022-07-13 14:27:41 <KipIngram   > Yeah, you'd certainly think minimality would have been a goal.
2022-07-13 14:28:24 <KipIngram   > I'm fairly fascinated with that whole thing.
2022-07-13 14:28:52 <KipIngram   > I mean, it's not "surprising" really - we all know that any Turing machine can do anything.  It's just nifty to see it right there in front of me like that.
2022-07-13 14:32:04 <imode       > it's an exceptional von Neumann machine.
2022-07-13 14:37:56 <KipIngram   > Well, sure - I just meant that we know that once a system has a very simple set of capabilities it becomes universally capable.
2022-07-13 14:39:04 <KipIngram   > I imagine the author just added new primitives as he found them necessary, and if we picked that binary apart we could probably see the order they were added in.  I guess it's probably pretty close to the order they're used in as well.
2022-07-13 14:39:40 <KipIngram   > Did you do any disassembly and inspection of the binary?
2022-07-13 14:39:59 <imode       > nope.
2022-07-13 14:40:06 <imode       > just looked at the bootstrap code.
2022-07-13 15:27:06 <KipIngram   > One of the primitive ops is f for find, which gets the xt, I guess, of a command starting with its char.  The thing is, though, is depending on what characters you wanted to use for the command names, that could be made fairly simple - if you used a consecutive range and had a jump table, it could be a simple calculation.
2022-07-13 15:27:15 <KipIngram   > Not a search of some data structure.
2022-07-13 15:28:02 <KipIngram   > Even if you didn't use a consecutive range, you could still have a table with holes in it.
2022-07-13 16:00:19 <siraben     > KipIngram: nice book recommendation, I like studying natural languages and speak 3 fluently myself
2022-07-13 16:01:00 <siraben     > the languages I have trouble trying to learn are inflected ones, it's unusual for me to express the role of a noun in a sentence so explicitly like that since I'm used to prepositions
2022-07-13 16:01:40 <thrig       > inflected words being perhaps unforthlike
2022-07-13 17:19:54 <KipIngram   > siraben: I'm evnious - I'd love to know another language, but have never gotten there.  Took some French in high school, but didn't "sink it in," so to speak.
2022-07-13 17:28:32 <KipIngram   > I like gathering up "moderate knowledge" from all over the place, and that book gave me some new stuff I hadn't known before.  Just prior to digging into language history I'd been watching a bunch of videos on YouTube about gentic studies of ancient human remains and what it tells us about history.
2022-07-13 17:29:04 <KipIngram   > That's a fascinating field, by the way.  Really amazing what they can do.
2022-07-13 17:29:46 <KipIngram   > It excited me so much that I felt like if I were of "career choosing" age I'd go that direction.  But I'm afraid my ship sailed a LONG time ago.
2022-07-13 18:48:30 <KipIngram   > Hey, looks like there's also a sectorlisp:
2022-07-13 18:48:31 <KipIngram   > https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp
2022-07-13 20:07:27 <KipIngram   > Oh, I got an invitation today to request a computer refresh.
2022-07-13 20:07:45 <KipIngram   > I was due two years ago, actually, but they put the whole program on hold because of the pandemic.
2022-07-13 20:07:51 <KipIngram   > Only emergency replacements.
2022-07-13 20:08:27 <KipIngram   > I've been happy with the 13" MacBook Air; decided I'd stick with MacOS for work purposes.  So I requisitioned a 14" MacBook Pro.
2022-07-13 20:08:58 <thrig       > 
ACTION putters around on 2009 macbook

2022-07-13 20:08:59 <KipIngram   > Normally refreshes are every four years.
2022-07-13 20:17:53 <Zarutian_HTC> not every seven?
2022-07-13 20:26:33 <KipIngram   > Well, almost worked out this way this time.  But no,  historically it was four.
2022-07-13 21:23:53 <siraben     > KipIngram: is it the one with the M1?
2022-07-13 21:32:48 <KipIngram   > Yes.
2022-07-13 21:33:54 <KipIngram   > For a long time I used the Macbook for my personal stuff as well, and had no other computer.  Getting an M1 would bother me some if that was still the case, but a year ago or so they crippled the USB ports and I bought a new computer of my own.
2022-07-13 21:34:17 <KipIngram   > So I doubt I'll even notice a different processor, given I'll just be using it for work stuff.
2022-07-13 23:11:43 <KipIngram   > imode: I may have to play around with something along the lines of PlanckForth when I got to re-implement my system in self-rebuildable form.
2022-07-13 23:11:48 <KipIngram   > I'm just quite taken with it.
2022-07-13 23:12:18 <KipIngram   > Like I said last night, I have thought some about that whole "bootstrapping" thing.   But never thought of anything that cool.
2022-07-13 23:12:40 <imode       > you should read about brainforth.
2022-07-13 23:12:56 <KipIngram   > I did have that "portable instruction layer" idea, which is at least somewhat like the initial menu of one-char operations that are provided.
2022-07-13 23:13:20 <KipIngram   > And, interestingly, I always estimated a portable instruction count that's not too far from the number they have in PlanckForth.
2022-07-13 23:13:39 <KipIngram   > So those could BE the portable instructions, and the rest becomes portable.
2022-07-13 23:14:27 <KipIngram   > If I did this I'd try to do it like I alluded to last night - I'd put the initial code somwhere that would be "outside" the intiially constructed "final system," so that I could just hand control off to that final system and forget all about the initial code - just overwrite it eventually.
2022-07-13 23:26:49 <KipIngram   > It occurs to me that if you had 1, <<, +, c!, and jump you could bootstrap a system - unless I'm overlooking something that's enough to put numbers on the stack, store bytes to RAM, and transfer control to a RAM location.
2022-07-13 23:27:01 <KipIngram   > It would be awfully laborious.
2022-07-13 23:28:14 <KipIngram   > But you could build bytes, poke 'em into RAM, and start it with that.
2022-07-13 23:31:11 <KipIngram   > There's an article out there somewhere on a "three instruction system.
2022-07-13 23:31:15 <KipIngram   >   years and years old.
2022-07-13 23:31:48 <KipIngram   > https://wiki.forth-ev.de/lib/exe/fetch.php/en:projects:a-start-with-forth:3_instruction_forth.pdf
2022-07-13 23:32:34 <thrig       > one instruction forth - hit a programmer with a stick until they produce ...