11 ms·

A 1956 encyclopaedia's view on the computer

120 points by thomholwerda 14y ago

olavk 14y ago
Regarding evolution, I believe the denial of evolution is something characteristic for american evangelicals. Most other christian denomination either accept evolution or doesn't really have an opinion on it, and AFAIK it is not really a major discussion outside of the US.
- facorreia 14y ago
  As a Brazilian Catholic, that is my impression too. This supposed incompatibility is mainly perceived by Americans.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    Most Brazilian Catholics are a very pragmatic bunch. Most believe in reincarnation.
    - facorreia 14y ago
      True, but even if you take Brazil out of the picture, the Catholic position on evolution would probably be surprising to most Americans in the same way the OP was surprised about the position of the Reformed church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
- lucian1900 14y ago
  Christian Orthodox people are another group that oppose evolution strongly, but they have a tendency to be less vocal.
  - entropy_ 14y ago
    Wait, do you speak of the Eastern Orthodox Church[1]? I'm middle eastern(Lebanese to be precise) and a very large segment of the Christian population here belongs to various Orthodox churches(Greek, Antiochian, Armenian and Syriac) and none of them, to my knowledge at least -- and I've talked to quite a few priests and bishops having worked as a missionary in Aleppo for a year -- deny evolution. I have never heard a single teaching in church(or outside of it by some church official) that denied evolution. In fact, those I've talked to who were versed on the subject usually treated evolution as fact. None of the whole "theory" hogwash. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
    - lucian1900 14y ago
      Yes, that's the one. At least all the ones I've met in Romania (and I've met quite a few) have tried to help me see the error of my ways and believe in the extremely literal interpretation of the creation myth as fact.
      - ovi256 14y ago
        While there is internal debate among Orthodox leaders about evolution, with both for and against camps, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never published official opinions on scientific matters, including evolution, implying such matters are of no concern. To understand the above statement, one must know several facts about the Eastern Orthodox (from now on EO) faith: - In a phrase, the EO world is peer-to-peer. There is no leader, similar to the Pope. Each country's Church is autonomous (they use the term autocephalous), including in theological matters. When they meet, they meet as peers, and the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized as the chairman of such meetings (primo inter pares, the first among peers or equals). The different Churches recognize each others' Orthodoxy, which stems from following the same theological principles, agreed some time ago during several Ecumenical Councils. Instead of EO Church, I should use EO Churches everywhere, and if I do not, it's a mistake. - The EO are very conservative on issuing theological statements. This stems from the conflict and fragmentation that rash statements have caused in the past, which have included millenia-long strife with the Catholic Church and various groups regarded as sects or heretical splinter churches. It does not help that the last Ecumenical Council to be recognized as valid by all EO was the Council of Nicaea of 787. Yes, that is not a typo. - The EO Churches regards material welfare with indifference, if not suspicion. They have strong ascetic traditions, at the extreme end ressembling nihilism, that underpin the faith and the recommended lifestyle. This attitude flows towards science as well. That is why we have not seen something similar to Islamic banking discussed among the EO. These concerns are so foreign, the EO faithful I've asked about similar things have been surprised I've thought faith could influence such a metter at all. - In stark contrast with American Evangelicals, the EO rarely, if ever, seek to influence state law or to seek enforcement of religious principles. AFAIK, the EO opinion is that a sinful action stopped by another still is a sin commited. - Evolution is not a hot issue in the EO countries. It looks to me like it's a hot issue only among the American Evangelicals, and the foreigners that share their faith. TL;DR So the Romanians that you have met were probably followers of dualism [1]: science can be incompatible with faith, and they exist in separate planes, which is a more complicated position than it looks, not dissimilar with doublethink. It would be wrong though to say this is the official EO position. For that to be true, dualism would have to be universal (or almost) among the EO faithful in all EO countries, and the next Council would have to ratify that position. That will not happen, IMO, before the heat death of this universe. Dualism is, AFAIK, popular among a minority, mostly the elderly faithful. FWIW, You would have to search hard for a dualist EO scientist or engineer. As for me, I'm a secular, not-very-observant, born EO, but I understand that Christian principles are foundational for European cultures, even in secular countries. My, was this a long reply. I felt the first statement would be hard to understand without its peculiar context. Edits: lots of typos, improvements. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Eastern_Orthodox_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Eastern_Orth...
- mhurron 14y ago
  You might want to expand your world view. Stupid is not the unique domain of the US. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/south-korea-evolution-education/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/south-korea-evolut... "The country’s [South Korea] anti-evolutionary sentiment appears to already be widespread within the schooling system, with a recent survey of trainee teachers in the country revealing half of those questioned disagreed with the statement that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.
  - marquis 14y ago
    I've noted this phenomenon around the world in mostly English-speaking countries, where it appears to have historically been derived from American Evangelism, due to access to certain literature, films and song (i.e. culture). South Korea, I imagine, has had a lot of input from the U.S.
  - olavk 14y ago
    Who said it was stupid? Evangelicalism is one of the fastest growing Christian denominations AFAIK, so arguably it is a quite successful belief. Of course it is unscientific, but that is a different issue. It might be smart to deny science depending on what you want to achieve. I don't know much about religion in South Korea, but I would assume that the denialism is due to American influence, since it seems to be a recent phenomenon (according to the article). Jehovas Witnesses is another world-wide movement that denies evolution, and it also originated in the US.
    - rbanffy 14y ago
      > It might be smart to deny science depending on what you want to achieve. This is not the kind of smart I'd like to be promoted. I'd prefer people being set free by the truth, not to be enslaved by fairy tales.
      - antidoh 14y ago
        Calling it fairy tales is never, ever going to get that side of the argument to converse in any manner better than defense. Engagement would be better. Some very, very smart people believe exactly the way you wish they wouldn't.
- mynameishere 14y ago
  I'm yet to meet anyone who denies evolution. It's actually a product of strawmanism, which is absolutely an American political habit.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    Shrug. They're out there somewhere, though I have yet to meet one either. > strawmanism, which is absolutely an American political habit I'm sure you could delete the word "American" from that sentence and it would be just as accurate.
  - alinajaf 14y ago
    They totally exist. My dad (an Epidemiologist by trade) didn't believe in evolution. He also wouldn't agree that gravity is the force that holds celestial objects in orbit around each other. People can be funny like that...
    - joering2 14y ago
      Your dad is a good man. I still don't believe in evloution. Supposedly we are related to monkeys in 98% genetically wise, but yet monkeys still have their children. They don't give birth to human. Further, just because something is similar doesnt mean that one come from other. Look at silver and gold molecules-wise. As of gravity, we still not sure what causes it and how it actually works. We can't re-create it, we just assume how it works.
      - floomp 14y ago
        Assuming you're serious, please, please research how evolution works. Evolution doesn't predict that a species will spontaneously give birth to another similar species - really the opposite, in fact. Almost all people who "deny" evolution do so because they've been misled about what it means.
        LeafStorm 14y ago
        > Almost all people who "deny" evolution do so because they've been misled about what it means. If they deny evolution as a natural process whereby mutations advantageous for survival are propagated, then yeah, they probably don't understand it. (The GP certainly doesn't.) But just because you accept evolution as a process doesn't mean you have to believe it is the origin of all biological diversity on Earth. It certainly doesn't mean you have to become an atheist.
- alinajaf 14y ago
  As a species we haven't had that long to get used to the idea. I hope sincerely that we will have all the denial out of our system in a few hundred years time.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  It's not really the denial of evolution, it's the selective denial of the scientific community's ability to understand the world. Especially where it would be inconvenient.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  This is very uninformed and related to a US-centric view of the world: there is plenty of ignorance and opinions to go around outside of the states. The issue is only so visible in the states because we are so divided, go to other countries outside of the 1st world/Europe and consensus is often toward creationism; there is not much controversy.
  - esbwhat 14y ago
    I agree the fact that it's very hotly debated in the US is part of what makes the US such an infamous example of this irrationality, but I would say the fact that the US is a scientifically advanced first world country definitely also contributes to why this is a phenomenon to so many people. Third world countries don't exactly have the best education system. The US (even though it gets a lot of slack) still has a comparably very good one, that should reach beyond "god put us on the earth with magic, the end". And it does reach beyond that, the whole "teach the controversy" is an eccentricism of an otherwise science-based curriculum.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "I believe the denial of evolution is something characteristic for american evangelicals." It's pretty easy to trace the history of this belief. In the late 1800s, a movement sprang up primarily in the US called "Liberal Christianity", which at its most extreme treated the Bible as essentially a useful and unreliable fairy tale. In response to this, a countermovement called "Christian Fundamentalism" arose, which at its most extreme treated the Bible (typically King James Version) as completely literal and completely perfect, and viewed any study of external data (like manuscripts or culture) with great suspicion. Fundamentalism became fairly influential in American Evangelical circles, even among those who did not explicitly adopt the title Fundamentalist. As a result of the rise of Fundamentalism, the idea of a literal six-day creation becameentrenched in the US, which directly led to the rejection of the theories Darwin had recently proposed regarding speciation. When I say the literalist belief became entrenched, I do not mean to say it was nonexistent before, only that it was rare. Various non-literal understandings of the creation account can be found throughout Christian history. For example, Augustine's treatise on Genesis 1 [0] is quite allegorical. [0] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.toc.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.toc.html - from where the word "Genesis" first appears on the page, down to where the list of names starts, you can click through to read each individual paragraph/section.
ma2rten 14y ago
Human language, on the other hand, has an infinite number of "nuances", and as such, a "translation computer will never be able to give a sufficiently satisfying solution". Since I make my living translating texts, I can certainly attest to this very fact. I don't agree with that. I think machine translation is a very difficult problem, but I don't think it is impossible. We are just getting started to do research on it. It is only since the 90ies that we have the computing resources which are necessary to build statistical, data-driven machine translation software like Google Translate, and it is only since the mid-2000s this approach became mainstream. If the computer were to end up and remain in the hands of a small elite, e.g. of a dictator, [the computer's] power will make the common man powerless and utterly submissive. And this tyranny will be introduced under the guise of the advancement of human well-being. I was thinking maybe a cynical person would say that the power of the internet is the actually is in the hands of a few right now (namely Google and Facebook).
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  That cynical person would confuse the internet with its usage :) The internet will still be there when AOL and netscape are gone.
  - ma2rten 14y ago
    I don't think a couple of network hubs and cables is what most people would refer to as the internet, e.g. "I went on the internet to find it", "I posted it on the internet".
  - PostOnce 14y ago
    I would imagine he/she was referring to the power of Google and Facebook to analyze & exploit the data of billions of people, something that is perhaps uniquely available to them, that the average man will never obtain or have access to this data
- drostie 14y ago
  Bear with me, this won't seem immediately relevant, but I'll get to the point. I have at various times created solvers and helpers for the sorts of logic puzzles you sometimes see in newspapers alongside the crosswords -- you can find a bunch of them online and with many of them, the limiting problem is simply time investment for applying automatic, pithy little rules. Just as an example, I wrote a helper script in Greasemonkey at one point for large versions of http://www.puzzle-loop.com/ http://www.puzzle-loop.com/ , the rules of which are "You have to draw lines between the dots to form a single loop without crossings or branches. The numbers indicate how many lines surround it." It's very satisfying to click once and then see an algorithm performing all of the drudge-work, leaving you to focus on the really interesting bits which you haven't yet been able to articulate as rules. One interesting problem in the above link is knowing when you're about to create a region which only has an odd number of ends inside of it. I found a very pretty way to do this in most cases. The central problem of the translation computer is that often, knowing which translation of word W is important depends on understanding the context around W, sometimes out a couple of sentences. The central problem of understanding the context of W, however, would demand a much more holistic approach than the above translation program seems to provide. The problem in both is precisely a declarative/imperative divide. We are very good at working out, given the adequacy conditions for the solution (the "rules of the game"), what sorts of automatic reflex actions we can do (the "moves" of the game, I suppose). We know the rules, we figure out the moves. Ideally, we would like to just tell a computer the rules of chess without specifying that there is something called 'value' of a piece, and that the computer should find values for e.g. the loss of a knight in comparison to the loss of a bishop. It should be able to work out the principles of effective play, if we want true machine learning. It is my contention, to tie this all together, that without something which appears like machine learning, we won't have anything which appears like machine understanding, and that a machine translation would appear like a machine understanding, due to context-sensitivity in translation: you will hand it "Knives were good for helping humans to hunt" and it will accidentally translate "good" as the equivalent for "ethical" rather than the more-likely-intended "efficient", because it correlates "helping" and "humans" with ethics.
zipdog 14y ago
As a side note, it was only a few years before this (in 1949) that Robert Busa approached IBM's Tom Watson with the idea of using a computer to make a concordance (of the works of Thomas Aquinas). Tom apparently said it was impossible (IBM was a number-crunching business, and parsing huge volumes of text was an entirely new field). Luckily the company's motto at the time was: “What's difficult we can do straight away, the impossible takes a little longer” The project is noted by many as the beginning of a computational approach to literature.
planetguy 14y ago
Y'know, for an article entitled "A 1956 encyclopaedia's view on the computer" I was kinda hoping for something that included more than one paragraph of quotes from the 1956 encyclopaedia.
- floomp 14y ago
  The text is probably still copyrighted. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine creative paraphrasing of the original work with small excerpts is much preferable, legally, to wholesale copying.
  - drostie 14y ago
    More importantly, if you read the article, the text is in Nederlands and the more you excerpt, the more you will have to translate.
gambler 14y ago
When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that we no longer have paper encyclopedias. (For the most part. There are still some, but I think their very nature is different.) It's kind of depressing. In 60 years, no one will write about Wikipedia articles in this key. Not just because it's digital, but because it's biased, full of edit wars and topic exclusions.
- marquis 14y ago
  Exactly - I believe that there is a really interesting space to fill in the future days to come: solving the problem of authority on a subject, without relying on the 'social network' solution. I may be quite a few degrees away from being friends of friends with the expert on, say, Galapagos iguanas.
lordlicorice 14y ago
"What struck me most about the entry was Van Riesen's philosophical approach to the matter, which is remarkably prescient of the challenges we, as the human race, face with how to deal with the computer" His opinion wasn't at all prescient. Computing gave unprecedented power to the people. It has absolutely never been a source of oppression.
- 127 14y ago
  Never say never. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143639670/the-technology-helping-repressive-regimes-spy http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143639670/the-technology-helpi...
antidoh 14y ago
"Sadly, Van Riesen passed away in 2000, but had he still been alive, I would have tried to get into contact with him." Contact his students.

120 points by thomholwerda 14y ago

olavk 14y ago

Regarding evolution, I believe the denial of evolution is something characteristic for american evangelicals. Most other christian denomination either accept evolution or doesn't really have an opinion on it, and AFAIK it is not really a major discussion outside of the US.

facorreia 14y ago
As a Brazilian Catholic, that is my impression too. This supposed incompatibility is mainly perceived by Americans.
- rbanffy 14y ago
  Most Brazilian Catholics are a very pragmatic bunch. Most believe in reincarnation.
  - facorreia 14y ago
    True, but even if you take Brazil out of the picture, the Catholic position on evolution would probably be surprising to most Americans in the same way the OP was surprised about the position of the Reformed church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
lucian1900 14y ago
Christian Orthodox people are another group that oppose evolution strongly, but they have a tendency to be less vocal.
- entropy_ 14y ago
  Wait, do you speak of the Eastern Orthodox Church[1]? I'm middle eastern(Lebanese to be precise) and a very large segment of the Christian population here belongs to various Orthodox churches(Greek, Antiochian, Armenian and Syriac) and none of them, to my knowledge at least -- and I've talked to quite a few priests and bishops having worked as a missionary in Aleppo for a year -- deny evolution. I have never heard a single teaching in church(or outside of it by some church official) that denied evolution. In fact, those I've talked to who were versed on the subject usually treated evolution as fact. None of the whole "theory" hogwash. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    Yes, that's the one. At least all the ones I've met in Romania (and I've met quite a few) have tried to help me see the error of my ways and believe in the extremely literal interpretation of the creation myth as fact.
    - ovi256 14y ago
      While there is internal debate among Orthodox leaders about evolution, with both for and against camps, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have never published official opinions on scientific matters, including evolution, implying such matters are of no concern. To understand the above statement, one must know several facts about the Eastern Orthodox (from now on EO) faith: - In a phrase, the EO world is peer-to-peer. There is no leader, similar to the Pope. Each country's Church is autonomous (they use the term autocephalous), including in theological matters. When they meet, they meet as peers, and the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized as the chairman of such meetings (primo inter pares, the first among peers or equals). The different Churches recognize each others' Orthodoxy, which stems from following the same theological principles, agreed some time ago during several Ecumenical Councils. Instead of EO Church, I should use EO Churches everywhere, and if I do not, it's a mistake. - The EO are very conservative on issuing theological statements. This stems from the conflict and fragmentation that rash statements have caused in the past, which have included millenia-long strife with the Catholic Church and various groups regarded as sects or heretical splinter churches. It does not help that the last Ecumenical Council to be recognized as valid by all EO was the Council of Nicaea of 787. Yes, that is not a typo. - The EO Churches regards material welfare with indifference, if not suspicion. They have strong ascetic traditions, at the extreme end ressembling nihilism, that underpin the faith and the recommended lifestyle. This attitude flows towards science as well. That is why we have not seen something similar to Islamic banking discussed among the EO. These concerns are so foreign, the EO faithful I've asked about similar things have been surprised I've thought faith could influence such a metter at all. - In stark contrast with American Evangelicals, the EO rarely, if ever, seek to influence state law or to seek enforcement of religious principles. AFAIK, the EO opinion is that a sinful action stopped by another still is a sin commited. - Evolution is not a hot issue in the EO countries. It looks to me like it's a hot issue only among the American Evangelicals, and the foreigners that share their faith. TL;DR So the Romanians that you have met were probably followers of dualism [1]: science can be incompatible with faith, and they exist in separate planes, which is a more complicated position than it looks, not dissimilar with doublethink. It would be wrong though to say this is the official EO position. For that to be true, dualism would have to be universal (or almost) among the EO faithful in all EO countries, and the next Council would have to ratify that position. That will not happen, IMO, before the heat death of this universe. Dualism is, AFAIK, popular among a minority, mostly the elderly faithful. FWIW, You would have to search hard for a dualist EO scientist or engineer. As for me, I'm a secular, not-very-observant, born EO, but I understand that Christian principles are foundational for European cultures, even in secular countries. My, was this a long reply. I felt the first statement would be hard to understand without its peculiar context. Edits: lots of typos, improvements. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Eastern_Orthodox_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Eastern_Orth...
mhurron 14y ago
You might want to expand your world view. Stupid is not the unique domain of the US. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/south-korea-evolution-education/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/south-korea-evolut... "The country’s [South Korea] anti-evolutionary sentiment appears to already be widespread within the schooling system, with a recent survey of trainee teachers in the country revealing half of those questioned disagreed with the statement that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”.
- marquis 14y ago
  I've noted this phenomenon around the world in mostly English-speaking countries, where it appears to have historically been derived from American Evangelism, due to access to certain literature, films and song (i.e. culture). South Korea, I imagine, has had a lot of input from the U.S.
- olavk 14y ago
  Who said it was stupid? Evangelicalism is one of the fastest growing Christian denominations AFAIK, so arguably it is a quite successful belief. Of course it is unscientific, but that is a different issue. It might be smart to deny science depending on what you want to achieve. I don't know much about religion in South Korea, but I would assume that the denialism is due to American influence, since it seems to be a recent phenomenon (according to the article). Jehovas Witnesses is another world-wide movement that denies evolution, and it also originated in the US.
  - rbanffy 14y ago
    > It might be smart to deny science depending on what you want to achieve. This is not the kind of smart I'd like to be promoted. I'd prefer people being set free by the truth, not to be enslaved by fairy tales.
    - antidoh 14y ago
      Calling it fairy tales is never, ever going to get that side of the argument to converse in any manner better than defense. Engagement would be better. Some very, very smart people believe exactly the way you wish they wouldn't.
mynameishere 14y ago
I'm yet to meet anyone who denies evolution. It's actually a product of strawmanism, which is absolutely an American political habit.
- planetguy 14y ago
  Shrug. They're out there somewhere, though I have yet to meet one either. > strawmanism, which is absolutely an American political habit I'm sure you could delete the word "American" from that sentence and it would be just as accurate.
- alinajaf 14y ago
  They totally exist. My dad (an Epidemiologist by trade) didn't believe in evolution. He also wouldn't agree that gravity is the force that holds celestial objects in orbit around each other. People can be funny like that...
  - joering2 14y ago
    Your dad is a good man. I still don't believe in evloution. Supposedly we are related to monkeys in 98% genetically wise, but yet monkeys still have their children. They don't give birth to human. Further, just because something is similar doesnt mean that one come from other. Look at silver and gold molecules-wise. As of gravity, we still not sure what causes it and how it actually works. We can't re-create it, we just assume how it works.
    - floomp 14y ago
      Assuming you're serious, please, please research how evolution works. Evolution doesn't predict that a species will spontaneously give birth to another similar species - really the opposite, in fact. Almost all people who "deny" evolution do so because they've been misled about what it means.
      - LeafStorm 14y ago
        > Almost all people who "deny" evolution do so because they've been misled about what it means. If they deny evolution as a natural process whereby mutations advantageous for survival are propagated, then yeah, they probably don't understand it. (The GP certainly doesn't.) But just because you accept evolution as a process doesn't mean you have to believe it is the origin of all biological diversity on Earth. It certainly doesn't mean you have to become an atheist.
alinajaf 14y ago
As a species we haven't had that long to get used to the idea. I hope sincerely that we will have all the denial out of our system in a few hundred years time.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
It's not really the denial of evolution, it's the selective denial of the scientific community's ability to understand the world. Especially where it would be inconvenient.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
This is very uninformed and related to a US-centric view of the world: there is plenty of ignorance and opinions to go around outside of the states. The issue is only so visible in the states because we are so divided, go to other countries outside of the 1st world/Europe and consensus is often toward creationism; there is not much controversy.
- esbwhat 14y ago
  I agree the fact that it's very hotly debated in the US is part of what makes the US such an infamous example of this irrationality, but I would say the fact that the US is a scientifically advanced first world country definitely also contributes to why this is a phenomenon to so many people. Third world countries don't exactly have the best education system. The US (even though it gets a lot of slack) still has a comparably very good one, that should reach beyond "god put us on the earth with magic, the end". And it does reach beyond that, the whole "teach the controversy" is an eccentricism of an otherwise science-based curriculum.
lotharbot 14y ago
> "I believe the denial of evolution is something characteristic for american evangelicals." It's pretty easy to trace the history of this belief. In the late 1800s, a movement sprang up primarily in the US called "Liberal Christianity", which at its most extreme treated the Bible as essentially a useful and unreliable fairy tale. In response to this, a countermovement called "Christian Fundamentalism" arose, which at its most extreme treated the Bible (typically King James Version) as completely literal and completely perfect, and viewed any study of external data (like manuscripts or culture) with great suspicion. Fundamentalism became fairly influential in American Evangelical circles, even among those who did not explicitly adopt the title Fundamentalist. As a result of the rise of Fundamentalism, the idea of a literal six-day creation becameentrenched in the US, which directly led to the rejection of the theories Darwin had recently proposed regarding speciation. When I say the literalist belief became entrenched, I do not mean to say it was nonexistent before, only that it was rare. Various non-literal understandings of the creation account can be found throughout Christian history. For example, Augustine's treatise on Genesis 1 [0] is quite allegorical. [0] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.toc.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.toc.html - from where the word "Genesis" first appears on the page, down to where the list of names starts, you can click through to read each individual paragraph/section.

ma2rten 14y ago

Human language, on the other hand, has an infinite number of "nuances", and as such, a "translation computer will never be able to give a sufficiently satisfying solution". Since I make my living translating texts, I can certainly attest to this very fact. I don't agree with that. I think machine translation is a very difficult problem, but I don't think it is impossible. We are just getting started to do research on it. It is only since the 90ies that we have the computing resources which are necessary to build statistical, data-driven machine translation software like Google Translate, and it is only since the mid-2000s this approach became mainstream. If the computer were to end up and remain in the hands of a small elite, e.g. of a dictator, [the computer's] power will make the common man powerless and utterly submissive. And this tyranny will be introduced under the guise of the advancement of human well-being. I was thinking maybe a cynical person would say that the power of the internet is the actually is in the hands of a few right now (namely Google and Facebook).

johnchristopher 14y ago
That cynical person would confuse the internet with its usage :) The internet will still be there when AOL and netscape are gone.
- ma2rten 14y ago
  I don't think a couple of network hubs and cables is what most people would refer to as the internet, e.g. "I went on the internet to find it", "I posted it on the internet".
- PostOnce 14y ago
  I would imagine he/she was referring to the power of Google and Facebook to analyze & exploit the data of billions of people, something that is perhaps uniquely available to them, that the average man will never obtain or have access to this data
drostie 14y ago
Bear with me, this won't seem immediately relevant, but I'll get to the point. I have at various times created solvers and helpers for the sorts of logic puzzles you sometimes see in newspapers alongside the crosswords -- you can find a bunch of them online and with many of them, the limiting problem is simply time investment for applying automatic, pithy little rules. Just as an example, I wrote a helper script in Greasemonkey at one point for large versions of http://www.puzzle-loop.com/ http://www.puzzle-loop.com/ , the rules of which are "You have to draw lines between the dots to form a single loop without crossings or branches. The numbers indicate how many lines surround it." It's very satisfying to click once and then see an algorithm performing all of the drudge-work, leaving you to focus on the really interesting bits which you haven't yet been able to articulate as rules. One interesting problem in the above link is knowing when you're about to create a region which only has an odd number of ends inside of it. I found a very pretty way to do this in most cases. The central problem of the translation computer is that often, knowing which translation of word W is important depends on understanding the context around W, sometimes out a couple of sentences. The central problem of understanding the context of W, however, would demand a much more holistic approach than the above translation program seems to provide. The problem in both is precisely a declarative/imperative divide. We are very good at working out, given the adequacy conditions for the solution (the "rules of the game"), what sorts of automatic reflex actions we can do (the "moves" of the game, I suppose). We know the rules, we figure out the moves. Ideally, we would like to just tell a computer the rules of chess without specifying that there is something called 'value' of a piece, and that the computer should find values for e.g. the loss of a knight in comparison to the loss of a bishop. It should be able to work out the principles of effective play, if we want true machine learning. It is my contention, to tie this all together, that without something which appears like machine learning, we won't have anything which appears like machine understanding, and that a machine translation would appear like a machine understanding, due to context-sensitivity in translation: you will hand it "Knives were good for helping humans to hunt" and it will accidentally translate "good" as the equivalent for "ethical" rather than the more-likely-intended "efficient", because it correlates "helping" and "humans" with ethics.

zipdog 14y ago

As a side note, it was only a few years before this (in 1949) that Robert Busa approached IBM's Tom Watson with the idea of using a computer to make a concordance (of the works of Thomas Aquinas). Tom apparently said it was impossible (IBM was a number-crunching business, and parsing huge volumes of text was an entirely new field). Luckily the company's motto at the time was: “What's difficult we can do straight away, the impossible takes a little longer” The project is noted by many as the beginning of a computational approach to literature.

planetguy 14y ago

Y'know, for an article entitled "A 1956 encyclopaedia's view on the computer" I was kinda hoping for something that included more than one paragraph of quotes from the 1956 encyclopaedia.

floomp 14y ago
The text is probably still copyrighted. I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine creative paraphrasing of the original work with small excerpts is much preferable, legally, to wholesale copying.
- drostie 14y ago
  More importantly, if you read the article, the text is in Nederlands and the more you excerpt, the more you will have to translate.

gambler 14y ago

When I was reading this, I couldn't stop thinking about the fact that we no longer have paper encyclopedias. (For the most part. There are still some, but I think their very nature is different.) It's kind of depressing. In 60 years, no one will write about Wikipedia articles in this key. Not just because it's digital, but because it's biased, full of edit wars and topic exclusions.

marquis 14y ago
Exactly - I believe that there is a really interesting space to fill in the future days to come: solving the problem of authority on a subject, without relying on the 'social network' solution. I may be quite a few degrees away from being friends of friends with the expert on, say, Galapagos iguanas.

lordlicorice 14y ago

"What struck me most about the entry was Van Riesen's philosophical approach to the matter, which is remarkably prescient of the challenges we, as the human race, face with how to deal with the computer" His opinion wasn't at all prescient. Computing gave unprecedented power to the people. It has absolutely never been a source of oppression.

127 14y ago
Never say never. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143639670/the-technology-helping-repressive-regimes-spy http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143639670/the-technology-helpi...

antidoh 14y ago

"Sadly, Van Riesen passed away in 2000, but had he still been alive, I would have tried to get into contact with him." Contact his students.