Dodo said:Hey, do you know how I hate the fact of having to think bout this whenever I'm 'communicating'? I'm all the logic type of a person for me it'd be the 66% thing, then if I recall that stuff again I have to reconsider. That's all fine and all, but what bothers me is, I know wether if someone meant something the way they said it, or not, but they just say something without thinking about it, that's so confusing when youYggdrasil said:*snip*
canhave to read peoples minds... people only heavily think about what they say when they're lying or confused...
It just sucks, that when I'm talking to people they do just assume the stuff according to the communication rule, not considering the fact that other possibilities are there, even though their probability being less and that really bothers me.
Would there be a logically or programmatical way of solving such things in the full complexity? Sven's code would just stochastically calculate the probability from random values... that'd be interesting
Dodo said:It just sucks, that when I'm talking to people they do just assume the stuff according to the communication rule, not considering the fact that other possibilities are there, even though their probability being less and that really bothers me.
There are languages, artificial languages, that were developed in order to be clear and unambiguous. Why are they not in common usage? Because they appeal mostly to that small subset of humanity whose minds work in a more logical and less associative fashion. You can find quite a few of those dealing with computers, not surprisingly. I've had conversations with people here on C9 itself that had a hard time acknowledging the lack of consistent parseability inherent in human communication.Myself, as someone who deals with words as much as with code, I enjoy the amorphous, ambiguous ambivalence of language. You just gotta remember that it's not based on irrationality, it's just that the ambiguity is an acceptable side-effect of the language development process.