Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

suggger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#141

Post by rramadass »

idiotsecant wrote: post #134
rramadass wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that all non-western practices, language included, have a deep and amazing and metaphysical quality that westerners simply couldn't understand is so tiresome. The author did not say this; this is your unnecessarily negative take. However the author is comparing Chinese with English where this is somewhat true and well studied; eg. A Comparison of Chinese and English Language Processing - https://www.scienc…

It is pretty unanimously agreed by linguists that all language is equally expressive, which makes sense considering they were all made by humans to do the same thing.

No; I had already refuted this in my earlier comment.

Language is a product of Geography and Culture to express a "Philosophical Worldview". Mere study of its Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Grammar are not enough. What is important is whether a given language has specialized technical vocabulary to express specific concepts/ideas i.e. the "complexity of semantics" involved. These are usually context/culture dependent.

As an example, compare the language of the Xhosa people living in equatorial Africa with that of the Chukchi people living in the Arctic Circle. It should be obvious that they each have concepts expressed via language unique to their Geography/Culture and which are unknown to the other.

As another example, consider the Sanskrit word Karma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma). It is impossible to understand this word in all its connotations (it actually is a stand-in for a whole lot of concepts) without having an idea of Reincarnation which is specific to Hinduism/Buddhism philosophical worldviews.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#142

Post by Edman274 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #134
rramadass wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that all non-western practices, language included, have a deep and amazing and metaphysical quality that westerners simply couldn't understand is so tiresome. The author did not say this; this is your unnecessarily negative take. However the author is comparing Chinese with English where this is somewhat true and well studied; eg. A Comparison of Chinese and English Language Processing - https://www.scienc…

It is pretty unanimously agreed by linguists that all language is equally expressive, which makes sense considering they were all made by humans to do the same thing.

Are there any languages in existence that lack a facility for counting numbers, to your knowledge?

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#143

Post by Izkata »

FloorEgg wrote: post #80
mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

I made my own top level comment below about the ambiguity of "I don't want x" and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x" I didn't know about semiotic square, and appreciate learning about it. It points at exactly the property that I keep tripping over (and seeing others trip over). Given that wants are an expression of values, and understanding other…

> and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x"

"I do not want to X"

"I want to not X"

These are both pretty natural English constructions, though the second is usually used as a retort for clarification after saying the first but meaning the second.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#145

Post by aspenmayer »

Izkata wrote: post #143
FloorEgg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made my own top level comment below about the ambiguity of "I don't want x" and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x" I didn't know about semiotic square, and appreciate learning about it. It points at exactly the property that I keep tripping over (and seeing others trip over). Given that wants are an expression of values, and understanding other…

> and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x" "I do not want to X" "I want to not X" These are both pretty natural English constructions, though the second is usually used as a retort for clarification after saying the first but meaning the second.

“I would prefer not to.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartleby,_the_Scrivener

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#146

Post by idiotsecant »

rramadass wrote: post #141
idiotsecant wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty unanimously agreed by linguists that all language is equally expressive, which makes sense considering they were all made by humans to do the same thing.

No; I had already refuted this in my earlier comment. Language is a product of Geography and Culture to express a "Philosophical Worldview". Mere study of its Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Grammar are not enough. What is important is whether a given language has specialized technical vocabulary to express specific concepts/ideas i.e. the "complexity of semantics" involved. These are usually context/culture depend…

Frankly, you are not qualified to make the claims you're making. You're not a linguist; you're just some guy. Not all opinions are equal.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#147

Post by popalchemist »

incr_me wrote: post #126
popalchemist wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed but we have veered far from Plato's school of thought ever since the dualism of Descartes and it was further reinforced by the rise in materialism following the "death of god" and the discovery of the atom.

I hear you on that, but it's not like Laozi's thought is particularly useful to Chinese capitalism, either. Certainly any remnant gestures towards the dialectics of Marx by the CCP are farcical. We can allow for some local variance, of course, while still seeing the vulgarization of the whole world, so to speak. I think it's important to appreciate that the seed of dialectical thought can never be vanquished; Kant ac…

I afford that "autonomy" (in the sense of a sponptaneous emergence of phenomena, not in the sense of having agency); nevertheless, thousands of years of culture going one way here and another way there lend themselves to pre-built apparati of perception. See other comments in this thread for a more articulated explanation of what I mean; I don't have the time to re-express it here.

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#148

Post by popalchemist »

idiotsecant wrote: post #146
rramadass wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; I had already refuted this in my earlier comment. Language is a product of Geography and Culture to express a "Philosophical Worldview". Mere study of its Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Grammar are not enough. What is important is whether a given language has specialized technical vocabulary to express specific concepts/ideas i.e. the "complexity of semantics" involved. These are usually context/culture depend…

Frankly, you are not qualified to make the claims you're making. You're not a linguist; you're just some guy. Not all opinions are equal.

Not all opinions must be taken on authority, they can be assessed on their internal coherence. The views he is putting forth are coherent and he has cited sources in a very precise manner. We can infer that he knows what he is talking about (spoiler: he does, as these are the same ideas I was referring to in my original comment).

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#149

Post by rramadass »

idiotsecant wrote: post #146
rramadass wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; I had already refuted this in my earlier comment. Language is a product of Geography and Culture to express a "Philosophical Worldview". Mere study of its Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Grammar are not enough. What is important is whether a given language has specialized technical vocabulary to express specific concepts/ideas i.e. the "complexity of semantics" involved. These are usually context/culture depend…

Frankly, you are not qualified to make the claims you're making. You're not a linguist; you're just some guy. Not all opinions are equal.

Huh? It seems like i have showed up your ignorance on this subject and hence you are just trying to "appeal to authority" which is funny given that you have actually not mentioned any one Authority nor any papers/books in support of your argument.

I have studied Linguistics from the pov of Philosophy which any intelligent person should be able to infer from my references.

I don't think you even understand what the phrase "All languages are equally expressive" means. It means very different things when applied to Natural Languages vs. Formal Languages. The latter is where this expression is usually used/studied which is what you are parroting without any understanding.

For your edification, i highly recommend reading about the well-studied Pirahã language - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language Note in particular the reference papers/books by Daniel Everett on the Pirahã - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Re: The architecture of “not bad”: Decoding the Chinese source code of the void

#150

Post by bonoboTP »

FloorEgg wrote: post #80
mathewsanders wrote: post #27

This makes me think of a tool from semiotics called the Greimas square where you can have opposing concepts e.g. A and B (ugly & beautiful, for & against, legal & illegal). At the surface level they can appear as binaries, but the negation of A is not equivalent to B and vice versa (e.g. illegal is not equivalent to not-legal) and encourages the consideration of more complex meta-concepts which at surface level seem…

I made my own top level comment below about the ambiguity of "I don't want x" and how hard it is in English to distinguish between "I have zero want for x" and "I have negative want for x" I didn't know about semiotic square, and appreciate learning about it. It points at exactly the property that I keep tripping over (and seeing others trip over). Given that wants are an expression of values, and understanding other…

Related, that in English "must not" means that it's forbidden, while in German the analogous "muss nicht" just means "don't have to". Also "need not" means "don't need", instead of actually needing the negation.
Post reply on HN