From: Kevin <darkintent@...>
Date: 2011-04-14T14:32:35+09:00
Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over

--0016e6db297885c99704a0da40c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

So I take it you are taking your ball home now?  You invent a magic
restriction and I applied your  restriction to something that you would
consider a programming language to illustrate the problem with your
restriction. Namely that the language does not exist unless the machine can
interpret it, a delivery system is required before something can be
considered a language since you want to ignore the human who is also capable
of deriving meaning from code. I also pointed out problems with the
definition you want so badly to misread.  You routinely use examples that
have nothing to do with anything being discussed here and I am the one
guilty of "moving the goal posts" and sophistry? I have maintained from the
beginning that all programs are systems of expression, I haven't moved any
goal posts. When I mentioned your easy chair example I was trying to point
out that  your statements about an easy chair being a mechanism while not
being a language were unimportant because I wasn't saying that all systems
are languages, I have been saying that all systems that can/do express human
thoughts are languages and that a computer program (and not the physical
computer itself) is such a system.

Earlier you said that I was making an analogy with pictures and language and
that said analogy was false because pictures are statements and not
language  this is false.  I said that pictures can form the basis of a
language I did not say that they were the language itself.  Furthermore you
claimed that definition seven in set one was being used metaphorically in
the sense that it is not literally applicable.  The problem with that is
that no symbol can be literally applied to anything.  In point of fact
symbol and metaphor are synonymous with one another.  So according to you
language is a set of metaphors that stand for instructions in this context
but definition seven in set one of language is invalid because it is
metaphorical even though rejecting definition seven in this manner requires
you to also reject definition twelve since it says that within this context
language is a set of metaphors applied with certain rules that can be used
to give instructions to a computer. (A system that is expressive.) In short
according to you definition twelve is not appropriate for this discussion
since you reject the use of metaphorical definitions. Even if you don't
accept that there really is a set of definitions for flowers so no
definition seven in set one was not being used metaphorically (As a simile.)
it was being used quite literally, the language of flowers being an example
of a communication system.  If you look at the second example  "the language
of art"; depending on which definition of art you use, such a statement may
be understood in terms of definition one of language since definition one of
language pretty much defines jargon.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:44:05AM +0900, Kevin wrote:
>
> [snip]
> blah blah blah sophistry
> [/snip]
>
> I have no interest in continuing this discussion, where your rhetorical
> techniques basically consist of moving the goal posts every six minutes.
>
>
> >
> > Just for your information a computer used to refer to a person that did
> > computations.
>
> I'm aware of this.
>
> Oh, look -- the goalposts are moving again.
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
>

--0016e6db297885c99704a0da40c3--