Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Human-human communication Message-ID: <1315@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 2 Jun 88 07:18:09 GMT References: <32403@linus.UUCP> <238@proxftl.UUCP> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 33 In article <238@proxftl.UUCP> tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd) writes: > >Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-) Many things learnt by imitation, and taught by demonstration ;-) I used to be involved in competitive gymnastics. Last year, I got involved in coaching. The differences between the techniques I learnt and the ones now taught are substantial. There is a lot less talk, and much more video. Many moves are taught by "shaping" gymnasts into "memory positions" (aiming for some of these positions will actually put you somewhere else, but that's the intention). With young children especially, trying to describe moves is pointless. Even with adults, dance notations are a real problem. We could get pedantic and say that ultimately this is describable. For something to be USEFULLY describable by language a) someone other than the author must understand it (thus we comment programs in natural language) b) it must be more accurate and more efficient than other forms of communication. Anyone who's interested in robot movement might find some inspiration in gymnastic training programs for under-5s. The amount of knowledge and skill required to chain a few movements together is intriguing. As with all human learning, the only insights are from failures to learn (you can't observe someone learnING). Perhaps the early mistakes of young gymnasts may give a better insight into running robots :-) -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs!ukc!glasgow!gilbert The proper object of the study of humanity is humans, not machines