Now that the hate blogging officer already, I have decided also to make again my mental outpourings in the ether. Moreover, the German language will be practiced. Subjectively, there is a lack of English language to "grip", which carries over to thinking. Thinking and language are inextricably linked - that believes the pragmatics and psycholinguistics, and I think so. One can even go one step further and have an influence on the language being excused propagate Heidegger'ismus', the self-image. Anyway, it is time that thoughts are cut German language before the softness of the English language shall take possession of my being. has
After more than half a year in the science, it surprised me how much ignorance is still wide in some places made even within a single discipline.
If science is not at least strive for objectivity, even if the goal seems unattainable? If Belonging to individual schools and personal vanity may not be employed behind the goal of gaining knowledge?
Apparently this attitude is by no means a given. Maybe I'm just too idealistic and would do in a few years a U-turn for the "grumpy old bastard" whose bitterness is exceeded only by his cynicism. Yet I doubt that will ever happen. But one should never underestimate what one might be capable. (Note that I no longer get along without English interference grumpy old bastard -.? Age bony bag). In support
To the above statement made, I should perhaps have some background information to give "my" science.
The project: Bring robot to learn through interaction with a human dialogue partner, the language of the dialogue partner.
My focus: Bring the robot to learn negative speech acts: rejection, prohibition, opposition, negation. In short, make the robot human-like, bony, unpredictable.
The method: Take One theory of analytic philosophy, linguistics (especially pragmatics), psycholinguistics and the psychology of early childhood language acquisition, these fit the "life world" of the robot and and pour it in algorithmic form.
As can be seen on the way The company is highly interdisciplinary and highly ambitious - one might even say doomed.
Under slightly more than half a year in this area, after the visit of several workshops, after the visit of psychology, philosophy and robotics lectures experiences varied.
access number 1: I'm alone in my radically interdisciplinary approach.
radical Why?
I try to keep my position open as possible. I try to avoid to be joining a school, before I do not have a half way review of all existent schools. A hasty race in one direction could have fatal consequences. If the basic architecture is, I have to live with it and with all the basic defects that are potentially contained in it.
Why alone?
All project partners, who I have met so far seem to belong to a school that most of even the same: Psychological pragmatists in the way of Tomasello and cognitive scientist who specializes in neural networks. language can be "from scratch" learned - they have in common is the rejection of Chomsky's rationalism, enrolnment of universal grammar. All questions to my professor after the "big picture" so far received a reply in a way that it probably would not have possibly, to unite the various items of the schools and sought to work out the exact differences. Therefore
Insight No. 2: Scientists are also only children, and not a good of the species.
The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on > "speech acts" seems to confirm this. Speech act theorists, philosophers, especially after her being, and pragmatists à la Grice, mainly those linguists who seem to have ignored science, especially over decades. It took almost thirty years, until the first has tried to combine aspects of both theories that try so obvious to explain the phenomena of Matches that one in legal jargon, no more likely to negligence but rather speak of intent, in respect to the ignorance of the other theory.
And this is just one example. In psychology, it looks much better.
Wittgenstein Oh, what you would say? Where did all this ignorance, where all the pride?
Let's hope I'm just too stupid to see that the ignorance justified and the schools are basically incompatible, so my plan would be meaningless.
anything because everything could only mean one thing: Many scientists are only small bony children who remain at their current position that Superman is better and stronger than Spiderman or the other way around.
So am I a heretic in my refusal keeping me blind to join the school of my project partner? Where are the other rebels? And why I can not my professor does not provide the "big picture" for which it thirsts me?
And where is the next Wittgenstein, the luminaries of our time properly philosophical views spanking the ass?
