World Wide Lexicon - SETI-type distributed computing application

1) Men walking on the moon

2) Nuclear energy (and everything that comes with it)

3) TV

4) Computers

5) Biotech (and we haven\'t seen anything yet)



Guido





This is tantamount to comparing apples and oranges. Flying, TV, etc. have nothing to do with this: you just cannot compare such physical/mechanical/technical concepts with something as elusive as intuition, for example (and intuition plays a big part in language and translation).



Airplanes and TV may not have been around 500 years ago, but language (as well as translation) was! And, still, science has not been able to capture intuition (and these other \"wishy-washy\" concepts related to language and translation), and they never will.



We all use language intuitively, and often we can\'t even say why we choose to phrase certain things in a certain way (for example, a native speaker\'s \"gut feeling\").



As one of my professors used to say, \"There is no system in it, only madness!\" But for machines or computers to be able to be programmed for this, there will have to be a system first, which simply doesn\'t exist (and you can\'t create one just out of spite).



So, no system, no computer program! Got it?

[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-04-06 01:41 ] ▲ Collapse

... would be an exercise in futility. But just for the record: I don\'t care that you\'re an atheist



Tsk, tsk, tsk... calling people names now? That\'s a big no-no, remember?



While we\'re at it, you might want to check out one of the many lists of logical fallacies. It\'s an eye opener if you want to consider debating on a regular basis:



http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm



Quote:

but I have never made any religious claims in this matter.



Any claim that\'s based on faith (as opposed to rationality) is said to be religious in nature. This is pretty standard in debate forums.



Quote:

Anyone who is a professional \"language user\" (writer, translator, interpreter) would know that machines just cannot be programmed to do something for which there is no coherent system.



See? This type of argument is a personal opinion. Again, that\'s perfectly ok, as long as it is not presented as the ultimate truth.



Quote:

So, your persistent support of MT really DOES make me wonder ....



*I* support current MT? Exactly where do I say that? ▲ Collapse

When translating from A to B, a professional translator will \"ignore\" the words and phrases used in A; instead, he/she will \"glean the meaning\" ( (c) Patels, 1995), \"visualizing\" the information, internalizing it, \"making it his/her own\" and then rendering it in B using the means available to him/her.





You believe this is based on faith??? I have never laughed this hard, my dear!



This is how the translation process works, my dear. No faith, just the facts. So, please, Dyran, don\'t respond unless: a) you can refute the above \"translation theory\" (I\'d really like to see you try - without losing your credibility as a professional translator, that is!) OR b) you actually have a substantial contribution to make to the subject instead of harping on about your \"lack of faith\" and \"rules of debate\".



P.S. Dyran, I find your way of quoting around the essential passages of my postings and always sinking your teeth in the \"filler\" truly ingenious!

[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-04-08 00:57 ] ▲ Collapse

When translating from A to B, a professional translator will \"ignore\" the words and phrases used in A; instead, he/she will \"glean the meaning\" ( (c) Patels, 1995), \"visualizing\" the information, internalizing it, \"making it his/her own\" and then rendering it in B using the means available to him/her.





Nice set of facts, but they have nothing to do with the main issue here. Let\'s recap:



You assert that a machine will *never* be able to think in a way similar to how our brain works, therefore making it impossible for it to translate accurately.



I question that assertion on the grounds that for it to be true, you would need to have absolute knowledge, not only of present developments on the subject, but also of future ones.



Since there\'s no such thing as absolute knowledge, I\'m assuming your assertion is based on some form of irrational belief.



Quite simple, isn\'t it?



Unfortunately, all that has been offered so far are personal opinions disguised as ultimate truths, random thoughts, and all kinds of fallacies (including ad-hominem attacks).



As for the failed attempt at being condescending, remember that for it to be effective, it has to come from greater to smaller, not the other way around.

[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-04-08 04:13 ] ▲ Collapse