Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!tomh
From: tomh@proxftl.UUCP (Tom Holroyd)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Human-human communication
Summary: Human-human communication is not impossible!
Message-ID: <238@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 31 May 88 15:05:00 GMT
References: <32403@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 31

In article <32403@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) writes:
> It is estimated that the human mind accumulates and retains over
> a lifetime enough information to fill 50,000 volumes.  That's quite
> a library.  The human input/output channel operates at about 300 bits
> per second (30 characters per second).  Exchanging personal knowledge
> bases is a time-consuming operation.  We are destined to remain unaware
> of vast portions of our civilization's collective information base.

This illustrates the problem quite nicely.  Obviously, if we are to
achieve understanding of our fellow man, we need to use our human I/O
channels as efficiently as possible.

> Much of what we know is not easily reduced to language.  That which
> cannot be described in words may have to be demonstrated in action.
> Some people speak of secret knowledge or private language.

Name one thing that isn't expressible with language! :-)

Even actions can be described.  We can't describe the unknown, of course.

A dog might "know" something and not be able to describe it, but this is
a shortcoming of the dog.  Humans have languages, natural and artificial,
that let us manipulate and transmit knowledge.

Does somebody out there want to discuss the difference between the dog's
way of knowing (no language) and the human's way of knowing (using language)?

Tom Holroyd
UUCP: {uunet,codas}!novavax!proxftl!tomh

The white knight is talking backwards.