00:00:00 --- log: started forth/01.06.27 00:50:53 heay 00:50:55 heya 01:53:08 --- join: rob_ert (robost86@h3n1fls33o898.telia.com) joined #forth 02:53:14 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob-ert_aw_ay 03:25:07 --- quit: klooie (Ping timeout for klooie[213-84-79-23.adsl.xs4all.nl]) 04:23:55 --- join: cleverdra (jfondren@1Cust129.tnt3.florence.sc.da.uu.net) joined #forth 04:23:55 --- mode: ChanServ set mode: +o cleverdra 04:24:03 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +oooo aaronl dired I440r nate37 04:24:03 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o rob-ert_aw_ay 04:25:07 --- topic: set to ': sum[0..n] dup 1+ 2 */ ;' by cleverdra 04:25:28 g'morning #Forth 04:26:48 --- nick: rob-ert_aw_ay -> rob_ert 04:27:13 good morning... 04:28:35 --- nick: rob_ert -> lighting_rob_ert 04:29:13 --- nick: lighting_rob_ert -> rob_ert 05:08:01 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_far_far_ 05:08:04 --- nick: rob_ert_far_far_ -> rob_ert_far_far_aw_ay 05:18:37 --- join: nibble (pool@host213-122-72-252.btinternet.com) joined #forth 05:26:02 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o nibble 05:26:07 hello nibble. 05:26:43 heya 05:28:41 dired, laws of form is at http://www.ultratechnology.com/laws.html#laws or http://www.rgshoup.com/lof/lof.html 05:28:42 OK, cleverdra. 05:32:39 nibble, I'm reading something right now, and the others are apparently asleep, but if you've any questions just ask them and I'll answer you when I notice. 05:33:09 hello 05:33:24 * aaronl has the high bid on a few SGI's right now 05:33:26 oh. g'morning aaron 05:33:36 aaron - cool. 05:33:43 yup 05:33:48 i just hope i don't win more than one :D 05:35:05 SGI Indy R4400 150Mhz / 32Meg / 1Gb HD 05:48:03 ebay? 06:07:48 --- nick: rob_ert_far_far_aw_ay -> rob_ert 06:18:44 yup 06:18:46 and i won it 06:19:04 now i just need a sweet little 20" TRINITRON SGI SONY NO RESERVE :p 06:20:55 congratulations! 06:25:30 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_aw_ay 06:36:34 --- quit: nibble (Ping timeout for nibble[host213-122-72-252.btinternet.com]) 06:52:55 cleverdra: any idea where i can find 72pin parity ram? 06:55:32 no, sorry. 07:09:59 --- join: grurp (grurp@pc19960.batc.tec.ut.us) joined #forth 07:24:38 --- join: nibble (involving@host213-122-69-163.btinternet.com) joined #forth 07:29:31 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +oo grurp nibble 07:29:37 wb. 07:40:03 --- join: klooie (kloo@213-84-79-23.adsl.xs4all.nl) joined #forth 07:40:07 hi. 07:48:19 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o klooie 07:48:23 hello klooie =) 07:48:56 oh lookie... 07:48:57 * klooie smiles. 07:55:36 ++ paralellism 07:56:29 : ++ bl parse 2dup karma-keys> 1 + >karma-keys ; 07:57:21 how're you doing today, klooie? 08:01:46 hey clever 08:01:51 i just got a 20" monitor, too! 08:02:27 aaron - cool! I think I've seen one of those :-) 08:02:33 lol 08:02:36 doubt it 08:02:38 it's 13W3 08:02:39 SGI 08:16:26 * aaronl is away: breakfast 08:18:17 --- quit: rob_ert_aw_ay (Read error to rob_ert_aw_ay[h3n1fls33o898.telia.com]: Connection reset by peer) 08:27:16 now THERE is an interesting statement (in c.l.f) 08:27:38 Elizabeth D. Rather: 08:27:58 ... ? 08:27:59 On 32-bit processors, 08:27:59 subroutine threading with in-line code expansion is usually smaller, as much as 08:27:59 25% smaller, as well as being much faster. 08:28:08 [end quote] 08:28:21 huhn. 08:28:39 that hadn't occured to me 08:29:01 in-line of some words, certainly. Enth inlines a number of small words where the inline is actually smaller than the alternative. 08:29:26 enth is subroutine threaded? 08:29:52 Yes. Actually, I may be more correct in saying 'Flux'. I know that the Flux subsystem does that, I dunno about the Enth proper. 08:30:12 then the alternative is "5 bytes" 08:30:25 a one byte call, and a 32bit address 08:31:04 oh, that's right, Enth may not be running in a 32 bit flat environment 08:31:40 I keep thinking Enth runs under windows or Linux ... I'm going to really shoot myself in the foot one day with that. 08:31:45 please explain "flat environment" 08:31:59 non-segmented 08:32:10 Yeah, Enth is in that. 08:32:21 With 32-bit numbers. 08:32:34 yes, w/ 32 bit address space 08:32:54 it is still possible to use segmentation win 32 bit protected mode 08:33:04 but things get REALLY confusing 08:33:12 * cleverdra shrugs. 08:34:03 when I wrote my JSR forth, it was in the DOS environment ... 16bit, segmented 08:34:06 I'll have to investigate Enth to be sure about what's going on, but the comments above this inlining code states that these words are inlined because the inline is smaller. 08:34:27 the comment. 08:34:41 that meant that a call was 3 bytes ... which very few words are smaller than 08:35:08 The calls here are certainly five bytes. 08:35:22 in a 32 bit environ, a call is 5 bytes ... and I'd guess that 1/2 the primites are smaller than that, and would get inlined 08:36:04 peephole instruction reduction would reduce that even more 08:37:48 --- join: rob_ert_aw_ay (robost86@h3n1fls33o898.telia.com) joined #forth 08:38:08 --- nick: rob_ert_aw_ay -> rob_ert 08:38:39 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o rob_ert 08:38:51 hello again rob_ert. 08:38:58 Hi 08:39:04 wb, rob_ert 08:39:10 Thanks =) 08:48:36 --- quit: nibble (Ping timeout for nibble[host213-122-69-163.btinternet.com]) 08:56:10 --- join: pi (dan@13.portland-05-10rs.or.dial-access.att.net) joined #forth 08:57:49 hi pi 08:58:04 greets, pi! 08:58:18 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o pi 08:58:28 hi 09:00:30 * aaronl is back (gone 00:44:04) 09:00:39 hihi 09:01:25 hihihi 09:02:57 hehehehihihihohoho 09:03:06 go go go joob 09:07:38 i am the walrus 09:08:30 see how they fly like pigs from a gun, see how they run, I'm crying 09:11:58 --- join: futhin (thin@h24-67-113-99.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth 09:12:12 hello all, hello cleverdra 09:12:28 hi 09:12:32 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +o futhin 09:12:33 hi rob 09:12:45 i did cleverdra's job ;) 09:12:48 can somebody tell me how to open files in forth? 09:13:02 like load files into blocks or something? 09:13:11 how do i access a file? 09:13:29 No idea =( 09:13:36 hmm.. ok 09:14:08 yes, I can 09:14:14 which forth are you on? 09:14:29 win32forth, but i'm going to need to run the program on linux later 09:14:52 ok, you should be able to do that with ANS commands in w32f 09:15:22 hm.. which? 09:15:30 : X .. S" TEST.FTH" R/W OPEN-FILE ABORT" OPEN-FILE FAILED" ... ; 09:15:44 okay cool 09:15:57 here is the stack pic for open-file ... 09:16:11 ( c-addr u fam -- fileid ior ) 09:16:19 Open the file named in the character string specified by c-addr u, with file access method indicated by fam. 09:16:19 The meaning of values of fam is implementation defined. 09:16:30 If the file is successfully opened, ior is zero, fileid is its identifier, and the file has been positioned to the start 09:16:30 of the file. 09:16:43 Otherwise, ior is the implementation-defined I/O result code and fileid is undefined. 09:17:31 okay, so once you open=file how do you access the stuff in the file? 09:17:40 then there is READ-FILE ( c-addr u1 fileid -- u2 ior ) 09:18:03 and READ-LINE ( c-addr u1 fileid -- u2 flag ior ) 09:18:14 hm 09:18:44 and WRITE-FILE ( c-addr u fileid -- ior ) 09:19:03 and WRITE-LINE ( c-addr u fileid -- ior ) 09:19:18 how are you getting the stack comments? 09:19:24 or are you just typing it out? 09:19:42 and, finally, CLOSE-FILE ( fileid -- ior ) 09:20:01 I'm typing the words, and pasting the stack effect from the dpANS document 09:20:26 i don't have to open-file first before using read-file right? 09:20:44 you DO have to open the file before reading from it 09:20:48 ah 09:20:58 ok 09:21:05 otherwise you have no "fileid" to use 09:21:11 ok 09:21:22 hm 09:21:34 on unix, you can cheat by using "1" for fileid, which should send to stdout 09:21:38 * cleverdra returns. 09:21:43 so read-file does what? 09:21:45 but that's REALLY bad practice 09:21:59 READ-FILE ( c-addr u1 fileid -- u2 ior ) 09:22:03 like after i use read-file how do i access the text within the file? 09:22:03 ok ... 09:22:12 like, does read-file put the stuff into a block or buffer or something? 09:22:18 futhin - www.forth.org has a link to the dpANSForth standard which describes all these words. If you have gforth (for example), it's documentation also describes file words 09:22:20 give read-file the address of a buffer and its size 09:22:29 futhin - yes, one of the arguments to read-file is the buffer 09:22:34 ah 09:22:42 that is c-add and u1 09:22:56 indicate which file you want it to read from ... that's fileid 09:23:11 how do i know what address is safe to give read-file? 09:23:18 futhin - if you're on unix, look at `man 2 read`, as read-file is basically a wrapper for that syscall. 09:23:28 it return ior on top of stack ... 0 unless a catastrophic error occured (like wrong fileid) 09:23:35 futhin - typically, you create a buffer first. 09:23:42 how? 09:23:51 under ior is the number of bytes that read-file actually read 09:23:51 futhin - CREATE and ALLOT work. 09:23:56 ok 09:24:25 u2 might be less than u1 if you attempted to read more chars than available 09:24:49 create filebuf 257 chars allot 09:25:04 if I'm writing an application, I usually use PAD for my buffers 09:25:10 filebuf 1+ 256 some-fileid read-file throw filebuf c! 09:25:18 i need to basically read a line in from the file, match it, and repeat with next line.. thru the whole file.. 09:25:38 futhin - what are you trying to do? 09:25:55 processing an eggdrop textfile 09:26:06 irc log 09:26:33 actually I should've said char+ instead of 1+ :-/ I'm trying to do ANS code anyway -- but then I shouldn't used CHARS and such. You get the idea though from that code, right? 09:26:45 futhin - processing is a very general sort of operation 09:26:47 my friend wants me to code it so that he can see if forth is fast or not, cause he's coded a perl processor :) 09:27:04 he wants to compare speed heh 09:27:38 ok, in that case ... 09:28:01 futhin - o/~ this is not a good comparison o/~ 09:28:03 open the file ... get its size ... allocate a buffer for the entire file ... read the whole file in 09:28:03 i'm just matching each line to something, like a public message would search for < > in and return that to caller (we haven't decided how to treat the matching yet) 09:28:12 futhin - what MrReach is saying. 09:28:55 what happens if the file is bigger than ram? 09:29:00 close the input file, open the output file ... start parsing 09:29:03 than ram available 09:29:04 futhin - then it doesn't fit, see? 09:29:15 and then what happens? it fails? 09:29:21 futhin - painfully. 09:29:30 then you will get an error from ALLOCATE ... but that is incredibly unlikely on Win32 or Linux 09:29:34 futhin - well, not really. It obviously won't work. 09:29:44 hm. Yes, what MrReach said. 09:30:36 I have 128MB of swap on both machines, so I can prob read 10MB files into memory w/o too many probs 09:30:37 : make-fbuf: ( fileid -- ) file-size throw allocate throw create , does> @ ; 09:31:06 does file-size return an ior? 09:31:13 I don't have documentation on this machine. 09:31:16 I believe, lemme check 09:31:25 i'm not quite sure how the perl program works, but i think it generally reads in all of the file, and if that doesn't fit, it probably does some automatic swapping as necessary?? 09:31:42 ( fileid -- ud ior ) 09:31:44 futhin - Perl probably does *not* itself do swapping. 09:31:48 thanks MrReach. 09:32:04 : make-fbuf: ( fileid -- ) file-size throw d>s allocate throw create , does> @ ; 09:32:05 well my friend said the os would do the swapping itself.. 09:32:16 WARNING: the "ud" on the stack is a double ... two stack entries ... the uppper contains the most significant 32 bits 09:32:23 or mayble 1+ allocate... 09:32:28 futh, yep, it prob would 09:32:48 so how large is the largest file? 09:32:57 prolly 8.5 megs 09:33:07 which should be fine i guess 09:33:21 dired, 8.5 * 1024 * 1024 09:33:22 ok, open w32forth ... I'll do the same here 09:33:22 8912896 09:33:32 That'll fit in a 32 bit number. 09:34:13 8912896 allocate .s [2] 6553612 0 ok.. 09:34:41 my computer just allocated 8,912,896 bytes without barfing 09:35:04 yeah, same here 09:35:09 your outer interpreter prints DEPTH dots too? =) I love that. 09:35:13 i've got 32 megs of ram :) 09:35:25 now type "drop free drop" 09:35:28 That used to be Enth, until Enth had the last line of the screen set up to display the stack and depth constantly. 09:35:42 I've got 128MB, and the same in swap 09:35:54 hm, cool 09:36:27 20000000 allocate .s [3] 0 24707084 0 ok... 09:36:44 that just allocated 20megs on my machine, no prob 09:37:22 nevermind the extra 0 on the stack 09:37:48 now type "drop free drop" 09:37:50 --- quit: pi (Read error to pi[13.portland-05-10rs.or.dial-access.att.net]: EOF from client) 09:38:38 jeesh this channel is almost a REAL channel with the number of ppl in here hehe 09:38:41 how does your machine handle it? 09:38:47 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_aw_ay 09:38:52 heya, I440r 09:38:56 --- nick: rob_ert_aw_ay -> rob_ert 09:38:58 20000000 allocate .s [2] 15532044 0 ok 09:39:02 and there's actually some source in here 09:39:10 I think channels are always real, unless they aren't. 09:39:37 if you advertise this channel on clf then we might get too many people :P 09:39:39 futhin - congratulations! 09:39:50 ok, futhin, does that convince you that you're prob not going to bomb out while slurping up a big text file? 09:40:13 the 20meg failed to 15 megs didn't it? :) 09:40:31 : make-fbuf: ( fileid -- ) file-size throw drop 4 + allocate throw create , does> @ ; 09:40:34 hi :) just got up - gota get a coffee 09:40:43 most OS's are most efficient when reading large ammounts of data atomically ... that is in one system call 09:41:05 some-fileid make-fbuf: THIS-BUF \ cell-count plus all the bytes in the file 09:41:20 cleverdra: I would create a word that accepts a filename ... and returns a memory address of the buffer holding that file 09:42:16 MrReach - yeah, that'll work too. ( fileid -- buf len ) ... actually a better idea. You can pass that straight to one of the string-searching words. 09:42:39 ok, um, different question now 09:42:49 Isn't there actually a ANS word that'll do what futhin wants? To search for a substring in a string? 09:43:02 futhin - OK. 09:44:30 suppose i read in a line from the file and it looks like " hi there!" i need to match the <> before i can say it's a public message. i should also probably recognize the as separate (delimited by space) 09:44:46 --- nick: rob_ert -> robert 09:44:50 --- nick: robert -> rob_ert 09:44:57 : slurp ( adr cnt -- buf-adr ) R/O OPEN-FILE THROW DUP FILE-SIZE THROW DUP ALLOCATE THROW ( fileid size buf ) ... 09:45:04 I don't understand the last six words of your question, futhin. 09:45:30 what futhin wants .... 09:45:31 uh " hi there!" the has a space after it 09:46:00 wh ois jennifer ?? :) 09:46:02 yeah. I see that. Are you distinguishing that from cases where does not have a space after it? 09:46:05 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob 09:46:09 is a match on "\n<[::PRINT::]>\w.*" 09:46:11 Do you just want to search for at the beginning of a line? 09:46:12 mrreach explain throw to me again ? 09:46:20 no.. will always have a space after it 09:46:46 it realy doesnt seem like a real forth word because forth words tend to be very descriptive of thats going on and i cant picuter forth throwing anything heh 09:47:06 --- nick: rob -> rob_ert 09:47:29 i'm saying, i need to match the <> in the first "word" which is "" and the first word is obvious because it has a space between it and the rest of the text "hi there!" 09:47:29 I440r: if TOS is 0, do nothing and continue execution ... otherwise unnest the return and parameter stack back to the nearest CATCH, leaving the TOS as it's output 09:48:00 I440r - throw is part of the catch/throw mechanism implemented by dpANSForth for error handling in Forth programs. It's stack comment is ( n -- ). If n is 0, nothing happens. If it is either positive or negative something happens. 09:48:14 I440r: it means "throw an error to whoever is catching" 09:48:32 Oh, I didn't know about it leaving TOS when caught. I don't use throw much. 09:48:51 I440r - some other languages use throw/catch like this 09:48:52 abort" is easier :P 09:48:57 cleverdra: I think it does, lemme check 09:49:08 but that leaves just one error handler 09:49:16 I440r - yeah, that's what many people said =) Others said that throw/catch was needed. 09:49:17 um, how do i match the < > in "" ?? i can't use WORD? 09:49:21 I440r: abort" is usually implemented using throw, on systems that have throw 09:49:34 Does anyone know about NETS? It was an alternative error-handling mechanism submitted to ANS, that was thought to be cooler. 09:49:39 yea i recall that from the last time we talked about it 09:49:42 futhin: I think you need MATCH 09:49:58 see match 09:49:58 Error: match is undefined 09:50:04 futhin - please stop saying ``< > in ""'', it's confusing. 09:50:23 futhin - you want to do something with all lines in the file that begin with , yes? 09:50:31 i need to match the "<" and the ">" in "" does that help? :) 09:50:39 no 09:50:43 uh 09:51:11 futhin: I think we have all see IRC logs ... @:^> 09:51:13 no it's not, because you don't define 'match' and I don't understand how you could match "<" or ">" in "" specifically or what purpose this has. 09:51:19 these are all the different lines that i'm matching: 09:51:19 see match 09:51:19 Error: match is undefined 09:51:21 er 09:51:29 \join ([^ ]+) \([^ ]+\) joined/ && 09:51:29 \part ([^ ]+) \([^ ]+\) left #/ && 09:51:29 \quit ([^ ]+) \([^ ]+\) left irc: (.*)/ && 09:51:29 \kick ([^ ]+) kicked from #[^ ]+ by ([^ ]+): (.+)/ && 09:51:29 \mode #[^ ]+ mode change '([^']+)' by ([^!]+)/ && 09:51:30 \nick Nick change: ([^ ]+) -> (.+)/ && 09:51:32 \duplicate Last message repeated (\d+)/ && 09:51:34 \ 09:51:36 uh 09:51:38 ugh 09:52:08 futhin - do you want to find an arbitrary name? and and , but all in <> pairs and at the beginning of lines? 09:52:14 yeah 09:52:18 ok =) 09:52:35 COMPARE ( c-addr1 u1 c-addr2 u2 -- n ) 09:52:35 an arbitrary name, i need to recognize the < and the > in those names before they are "matched" :) 09:52:53 i don't know the names ahead of time 09:53:02 all i know is that they have < and > 09:53:03 futhin - OK, we've told you how to slurp a file into a buffer, now one way to do what you want is to step through the buffer by line and compare the beginning chars of it with COMPARE ( Thanks MrReach ) and your string. 09:53:31 futhin: ok, then ... compare one possibility at SOL, then the next, then the next 09:53:37 futhin - you *must* know the name when you're searching, otherwise "searching" is pointless. Please define "ahead of time". Do you know them at runtime? That's early enough to use COMPARE. 09:54:00 when a possibility is matched, process the line (however) ... search for beginning of next line 09:54:20 cleverdra: no, he doesn't need the name 09:54:22 argh 09:54:32 heh, i'm not being very clear on this 09:54:35 cleverdra: he only needs to know it's a "talk" line 09:54:39 : next-line ( buf - buf' ) begin dup c@ nl = ?exit char+ again ; 09:54:54 rather than a channel join or part, or mode change, or whatever 09:55:00 i'm taking in a line, and trying to determine if it's a public message, or if it's an action, or whatever. 09:55:08 futhin - OH! You want to search for lines that have , where foo is any time? You don't want to match specific names, but all names? 09:55:20 * MrReach laughs. 09:55:37 yeah, i want to match the "<" and ">" i think 09:55:38 OK, that's a bit easier. Do "talk" lines start always with '<'? Are there any other lines that start with that? 09:55:59 I suspect that futhin is processing eggdrop logs into HTML files for channel logs 09:56:19 futhin: is that right? 09:56:21 * cleverdra has never seen an eggdrop log. 09:56:30 here's an example 09:56:30 [00:00] nopers 09:56:31 [00:00] he's kawaiiiiiii 09:56:31 [00:00] Action: lulu comforts Nezzie 09:56:36 it looks very similar to mIRC logs 09:56:46 futhin - so, the timestap is part of the lines? 09:56:50 yes 09:56:57 but i can use an offset of 7 09:56:59 I suspect that futhin is processing eggdrop logs into HTML files for channel logs 09:57:01 futhin: is that right? 09:57:05 nope 09:57:27 i'm just matching lines and returning that to the "caller" 09:57:36 : +offset ( addr -- addr', account for [00:00] ) 8 + ; 09:57:47 oh, ok ... I rewrote the log portion of the eggdrop bot to write in HTML, and to start a new file at midnight 09:58:11 : is-talk-line? ( addr -- f ) c@ [char] < = ; 09:58:22 uh 09:58:26 MrReach - cool =) 09:59:13 c@ returns char at offset 9? 09:59:28 no, the addr given to is-talk-line? will be offset 09:59:33 wait a sec =) 10:00:00 futhin it doesnt return a char - it returns one stack item - it fetches a char -and zero extends it to however wide one stack item is 10:00:06 16 bits or 32 or waht ever 10:00:33 offset 9 is the "<" IF the line has it.. (i'm simplifying the address & offset for the moment) 10:00:58 what is [char] ?? 10:01:29 is [char] like ascii ? 10:03:08 hey I440r 10:03:09 : processs-talk-lines ( bufaddr n xt -- ) >r s>end+begin begin dup offset+ is-talk-line? if dup r@ execute then next-line 2dup = until 2drop rdrop ; 10:03:37 ugh 10:03:39 heh 10:03:40 isnt rdrop r>drop ? 10:03:46 yeah 10:03:58 [char] is like ascii I think 10:04:00 okk - thunked maybe they had changed it hehe 10:04:28 "[char] n" is a bit like "[ char n ] literal" 10:04:35 : foo ascii a emit ; 10:04:36 [char] = Skip leading space delimiters. Parse name delimited by a space. Append the 10:04:36 run-time semantics given below to the current definition 10:04:47 the a character is compiled as a literal 10:05:06 : s>end+begin ( addr n -- addr-end addr ) over + swap ; 10:05:10 i440r - yeah. 10:05:42 ruthin dont read the ans spec for descriptions of what words do - its written in gobbldegook :P 10:05:43 futhin - ick. Get some good documentation =) the dpANSForth stuff I only touch when I can't find anything else. 10:06:06 yeah, i'm annoyed that i can't type "man " in win32forth :P 10:06:16 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay 10:06:16 where do i get good documentation? 10:06:21 futhin - some Forths have something like that. 10:06:43 futhin search ftp.forth.org for fprimer.zip 10:06:47 futhin - uh, I like the gforth docs. Categorized by word function. 10:06:53 thas all dos related tho - 10:07:07 futhin - do you see how you'd do this, now? 10:07:30 not quite.. how do i match ? :) 10:07:44 c@ [char] < = 10:07:48 cleverdra: i want every single word in isforth described in detail on the isforth web site - 10:07:53 and examples of their use given 10:08:17 i440r: and example code so that lamos can just cut'n'paste :P 10:09:11 :) 10:09:17 like in turbopascal help, you can like get help on a particular command and it'll give you code using that particular command, if it happened to match what you wanted to do with it (and it usually did) then all i had to do was cut'n'paste it :P 10:09:19 futhin - you're not matching , you're matching the '<' that begins with and that no other line will begin with. If you want a *specific* , you'll have to write another word and maybe generalize PROCESS-TALK-LINES some more 10:10:00 I440r - that's a good plan. Documentation is *** GOOD ***. 10:10:13 and necessary! 10:10:35 not necessary, just good. Very good. Good with cherry on top. Does anyone know a better word than 'good' here? =) 10:10:36 I440r: it would help if you worked on isforth :-/ 10:10:49 cleverdra: yes :) 10:11:02 aaronl: i want to but i need tcn to gimme his stuff again doh! 10:11:13 Heheheheh 10:11:16 I440r - is isforth supposed to work now? I got it compiled a few days ago, but I can't even tell if it is reading stdin. 10:11:35 cleverdra: the version you have doesnt work 10:11:41 the version tcn has is starting to 10:12:34 ah, OK. 10:12:42 see why i need it ? hehe 10:13:40 futhin: one you know that the char at the proper offset is "<", then yo KNOW the line is a talk line ... it's up to the processing part to extract the name 10:15:36 the name can be extracted by looping through lines looking for a ">", when it is found, return the address of the start of the name (the character after "<") and how many chars are in the name 10:15:52 looping throught the characters, rather 10:16:00 mrreach why not just use parse ? 10:16:04 or word 10:16:09 ascii > word 10:16:09 ? 10:16:13 futhin - yeah, you see the xt stuff I'm doing in process-talk-lines? That's so you can call arbitrary Forth words upon an address where "<" is at. Then you can parse for a ">" and print the name or, or print the rest of the line out, or do whateer. 10:16:18 that would work 10:17:08 I440r: I've spent a lot of thought in how to document in source files ... do you have a system that you use yet? 10:17:33 i have some general guidelines that i try to follow like 10:17:34 dont do 10:17:35 code 10:17:36 comment 10:17:37 code 10:17:38 comment 10:17:40 code 10:17:42 comment 10:17:44 etc 10:17:51 why not? 10:17:52 interleaving code with comments is brain damaged 10:18:16 the more code you have on screen (without cramming) the more context you see 10:18:16 heh, you're gonna have to be a bit more clear on "braindamaged" 10:18:18 code comment 10:18:21 code comment 10:18:23 code comment 10:18:24 also 10:18:30 you can scan the code alot easier 10:18:35 oh, IC 10:18:58 have you read my answer to the linux CodingStyle doc ? 10:18:59 no, I meant for a way for the interpreter to auto-scan the sources and produce .HTML files 10:19:01 That's 'comment', as opposed to in-depth documentation. That stuff you put in another file. 10:19:11 oh u mean code2html ? 10:19:13 MrReach - javadoc type stuff? 10:19:19 yes 10:19:41 IMO, the docs should be right next to the code, so they can be changes simultaneously 10:19:42 i was talking to the guy that does code2html and he seemed interested :) 10:20:05 im gioing to learn php so that my web pages are always in sync with the source files in cvs 10:20:09 I don't really like that system. Gforth does something like that, I think. It uses \G for Glossary comments, and a parser (in Gforth) builds some documentation with these. 10:20:22 one prob with documentation is that you have to open another file and use another markup/language to change the docs 10:20:26 mrreach how about - change one - both change :) 10:20:38 I440r - you can do that pretty easily in C. All you need is a named pipe =) 10:20:39 mrreach oh i see - shaddow blocks ? 10:20:46 I440r: that's the idea, kinda 10:20:53 I440r - but.. some people like different solutions to these things. 10:21:26 cleverdra: the thing is that if i make a change to the source files - edit the word FOO - the web page should reflect this change - 10:21:34 shadow blocks was an early (and excellent) solution ... but todays authors prefer to write in text files 10:21:36 whe you edit foo you edit foo.doc too 10:21:40 I440r - yeah, I could do that very easily with a named pipe. 10:22:10 cleverdra: php is basically c in web pages :) 10:22:14 cleverdra: you do not like the gforth documentation system? 10:22:15 Of course, you could just write your own webserver to do this, or simple CGI, or PHP as you said. Lots of methods. 10:22:43 cleverdra: thers are 3 projects im realy eager to get going once isforth works 10:22:46 a forth irc server 10:22:49 a forth web server 10:22:54 a forth web browser 10:23:01 I'm not thinking about how to deliver the docs ... but how to write them, and make it convenient for the coder to keep them updated 10:23:07 MrReach - the gforth documentation system is nice. You look at a word and you have four classes of information: the word name, the stack comment, the glossary description, and the code itself. With these it's easy to get a grasp on a word, or what the word is intended to do (if there is a bug). 10:23:51 MrReach - what I *don't* like is systems where the main documentation of a program is interwoven with the source of the program, simply because I find it hard to navigate and understand the program with all this. 10:24:14 I mean, there shouldn't be a *bloody page* between two related words. 10:25:12 hmmm. ... 10:25:49 well, I wonder which is more important ... doc near def ... or scannability 10:26:06 without scannability the first thing I will do is *remove* that documentation. 10:26:11 you're right, such documentation would disrupt casual browsing 10:26:17 is isforth going to run only in linux? 10:26:26 presumably 10:26:59 futhin - I440r says that implementations will be made for other systems, but that all implementations are going to themselves be very system-dependent. 10:27:21 ok 10:27:22 heh 10:27:47 futhin - but they'll define the same core words with the same functionality, so your code will be mostly portable between them. 10:28:16 (you've always possible problems about cell and char sizes and such. You can use dpANSForth techniques for these.) 10:29:26 cleverdra: I had initially thought of defining a slew of words all beginning "(..." for writing different pieces of documentation, and then embedding them in the source code ... you disagree vehemently with this? 10:32:02 --- quit: rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay (Read error to rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay[h3n1fls33o898.telia.com]: Connection reset by peer) 10:32:09 I440r: YES YES YES 10:32:21 I440r: the folks i bought the monitor from are 15 miles away 10:32:25 I440r: that will save me A LOT 10:33:12 cleverdra: how would you propose encouraging good documentation, then? 10:33:28 aaron - oh, wow =) Cool! Congratulations! 10:33:32 it seems obvious to me that SOMETHING needs to be done 10:33:36 aaron hehehehe 10:33:41 * aaronl is in a rockin' mode this morning 10:33:42 save u alot of TROUBLE too ehhe 10:33:47 brb - gtg to bank :) 10:33:47 yeah 10:33:53 buy that house yet? 10:34:05 aaronl: who you asking? 10:34:14 if it's me, then "yes" 10:34:14 MrReach - glossary statements seem to work, but more than that I think you'll only get with good policy (if you're a business/organisation) or a good philosophy. 10:34:26 MrReach: oh, i was asking I440r 10:34:57 * cleverdra scrolls up to get MrReach's question. 10:35:17 cleverdra: I had initially thought of defining a slew of words all beginning "(..." for writing different pieces of documentation, and then embedding them in the source code ... you disagree vehemently with this? 10:35:52 * MrReach types an example word .... 10:36:01 MrReach - I don't know enough to say. It might be cool. I'd prefer, on the whole, documentation for *groups* of words if possible. 10:36:39 : nop ; 10:36:39 (S -- ) 10:36:39 (G This word does nothing.) 10:36:41 excepting glossary-type documentation. If you're going to say what a whole bunch of words are for, put a blurb at the beginning of them. Then you can look at the words and refer to the blurb. 10:37:06 Why a specific (S word? Are you using ( a lot for other purposes? 10:37:14 DO NOT SAY THE S WORD 10:37:21 aaron =)( 10:37:26 hehe 10:37:27 ok, there might be "(F" to describe the contents of the file 10:37:58 and "(I" for a paragraph in the "Introduction" 10:38:08 MrReach - well, one thing Wil Baden does for per-file documentation is... something like this: 10:38:15 0 [IF] 10:38:31 OK. here's several pages of documentation and explanation. 10:38:35 [THEN] 10:38:41 cleverdra: a seperate "(S" word so that the doc formatter can pretty-print the HTML pages with tables and other fancy stuff 10:38:55 I hope there isn't a (B word 10:39:11 Forth will just skip over all that. Then you could parse that for certain kinds of markup languages if you want, or just have it ASCII. 10:39:16 MrReach - OK. 10:39:40 I have an HTML format that I'm quite fond of, but the HTML is complex ... it uses textual formating to indicate what one is reading 10:40:22 one might also write the above example as ... 10:40:29 MrReach - hee =) One thing you can do is put all these alternative-comment words in their own vocabulary (in your document-generator), and have it read in your program as Forth source -- but only executing words that are in this vocabulary! 10:40:42 : nop (S -- ) ; 10:40:42 (G This word does nothing.) 10:41:13 That looks cool, MrReach. What about seperate stack comments for data-stack and return-stack? Other stacks? 10:41:20 yes, I was thinking along those lines 10:41:47 in gforth's style that would be: 10:41:51 in the normal vocab stack, with Forth on top, they are all defined as nops 10:41:52 : nop ( -- ) 10:42:01 \G This word does nothing. 10:42:02 ; 10:42:08 or maybe ; at the beginning of a line. 10:42:11 one sec 10:42:49 cleverdra: yes, (S (R (F ... (RS (RR (RF ... for "compile time" and "run time", if one needs to distinguish 10:43:26 maybe (F for various flags, immediate, compile-only, helper word, etc 10:44:15 it would be hella nice to document the word BEFORE its definition, but that makes the parser overly complicated 10:44:46 I think your code and your parser would be simpler if you treated the Forth program as source. You could have : change state enough that you'd catch 'IMMEDIATE' and such outside of words. You could have context enough to tell stack comments for words and stack pictures inside of words, etc. 10:45:00 (and you could have documentation before words =) 10:45:17 Just change the outer interpreter a bit. 10:45:17 cleverdra: it may not disrupt scannability as much as you think ... support words are seldom documented ... and come BEFORE the main word 10:46:10 hmm 10:46:15 uggh, fuck 10:46:17 brb 10:46:17 i hate random people 10:46:37 he's like "come pick it up, we're at such and such a street corner" 10:46:45 this is like buying drugs! 10:46:57 i don't even know what his name or the company's name is :) 10:47:01 what? why? That sounds cool. 10:47:31 hehe 10:47:45 his feedback profile concerns me too :/ 10:47:47 sheesh! so carry your Mace if you're worried about it 10:48:11 at least mapquest knows where he is 10:48:14 make sure you pay with a check, so you can cancel it if you have to 10:48:27 haha 10:48:30 he wants it in CASH 10:48:31 think the monitor might be stolen? 10:48:38 * cleverdra returns. 10:48:40 lol 10:48:53 well, it is dirt cheap 10:49:01 his directions were ambiguous though 10:49:12 there are four corners at an intersection 10:49:15 I thought you meant streetcorner as in "their place is on such and such corner"... 10:49:24 and without knowing what their company's name IS ... 10:49:30 yeah, that's what i meant 10:49:35 so call him and ask 10:49:39 what i'm saying is it would be nice if they gave an address 10:49:40 i will. 10:49:55 aaron - is the monitor guaranteed to work? Did he say in his ebay description that it would? 10:50:03 I demand address first, then nearest cross-street 10:50:04 what pisses me off is the streetcorner thing was his response to "Where are you located"? 10:50:07 MrReach: yeah 10:50:12 cleverdra: "Working perfectly" 10:50:17 I can find it in the mapbook at that point 10:50:25 cleverdra: I don't have a comptible machine to test it with yet :| 10:51:01 well, you pays your monies and you takes your chances ... caveat emptor 10:51:18 yup 10:51:22 some people have very odd direction thoughts, aaron. Person #1 will tell you "Go north 5 miles and take a right.", Person #2 will tell you "Go thatawway until you reach a blue house, and take the right after the broken tree." Some people will tell you, "It's on the intersection of 4th and 5th." Others have no clue. 10:51:24 i hope the computer works though 10:51:28 because that's being shipped 10:51:35 and it's not guarenteed 10:51:38 it's explicitly as-is 10:51:43 and it has weird chalk marks on it 10:51:47 ah. hum hum. 10:51:58 aaron - a person was murdered on it! 10:52:09 * MrReach laughs out loud. 10:53:07 * MrReach goes to the nearest auction, chalking things he wants to by with "No power supply." and "Dead" 10:53:43 heh 10:54:27 hee. 10:55:31 * MrReach answers the question, "Why would you pay $100 for a dead monitor?" with "Because it's perfect for my fireplace mantle." 10:57:22 "EVIDENCE IN MURDER CASE #666F727468 -- PLEASE KEEP SECURE" would be a good chalk mark, I think. 10:57:31 --- quit: grurp (Bye all) 10:57:33 hey, do they have color bit-mapped displays with a serial interface yet? 10:57:57 hah 10:58:19 I saw some hella neat displays in the local grocery store, and I'd like to put one on the computer in my work truck. 10:58:20 cleverdra: they don't number murder cases in hexidecimal :P 10:58:23 --- join: grurp (grurp@pc19960.batc.tec.ut.us) joined #forth 10:58:38 wb, grurp 10:58:44 aaron - well, whatever =( 10:58:47 thanks 10:59:14 66 emit 6F emit 72 emit 74 emit 68 emit cr 10:59:28 anybody know where I might find such a display? they've got to be pretty cheap if they're in gocery stores 10:59:38 MrReach: you mean LCD's? 10:59:49 create word 74726F66 , 68 c, word 6 type cr ( depends on little-endian ) 10:59:51 it was color, looked like plasma 11:00:05 hmm 11:00:35 duh! I didn't think to look on the back of it and check for the manufacturer ... the store is 25 miles from here 11:00:42 hehehe 11:00:48 'spose I could drive back 11:01:10 What's your job, MrReach? 11:01:17 I only need 640x480x16 11:02:02 cleverdra: none, right now, living off of savings, but very seriously considering real estate investment 11:02:34 oh, OK. Just wondering because you have a work truck you'd like this display in =) 11:02:51 640x480x1 all the way! 11:03:10 well, it a big monstrosity that needs some cosmetic work 11:03:39 I'd though it'd be a kick to convert the engine to fuel injection and do the controller myself 11:03:48 oh SHIT 11:03:56 Complaint : This Guy sells me a busted monitor than don't answer my emails.. BEWARE>>>CROOK< 11:03:57 (I have a degree in electronics engineering) 11:04:04 That's for the same model monitor from the same guy 11:04:36 aaronl: you found that remark elsewhere? from a third party? 11:04:46 yup. feedback forum 11:05:15 walk away, then 11:05:26 let him try to sue you for breach of contract 11:05:33 hahaha 11:06:04 or demand that you see it work at his office before you walk away 11:06:06 well i can just kick his ass in person if i have provlems 11:06:11 something like that 11:06:31 I'd certainly do that if I were paying cash 11:06:52 aaron ... and you've already got the monitor, yes? 11:06:54 you don't know how many items I bought at 1/2 asking because the owner couldn't turn the damn thing on 11:07:21 I bought a $4,000 motorhome for $3,000 that way 11:07:44 MrReach - How's that again? I don't quite understand your method. 11:07:57 because the carb needed a rebuild ($24 and 3.5 hrs work) 11:08:22 for example ... a motorhome sitting in a guys driveway for $4,000 11:08:23 yeah 11:08:44 me "I might purchase that ... can you start it?" 11:08:56 he: no, it has not battery 11:09:01 Shit? i'm winning a SGI Indigo IRIS 50Mhz 96MB GR2-XS24Z Workstation ?! oops 11:09:14 me: oh, ok, just a sec, I'll get the one out of my truck 11:09:21 hahaha 11:09:22 aaron - that's bad? 11:09:37 cleverdra: i have the winning bid on a lot of things. i hope i don't win them all 11:09:37 it starts, but spews gasoline EVERYWHERE 11:09:41 MrReach =) Cool. 11:10:03 aaron - you're impatient! 11:10:14 I say... ok, let's look at the rest of it, lets start the Koeler 2.5kW generator 11:10:16 cleverdra: yeah, i guess 11:10:32 it starts, runs for two minutes, and quits unexpectedly 11:11:05 hahaha 11:11:29 me: I'm really not interested in a bunch of repair work ... either fix it and I'll pay $4,000 ... or I'll pay $3,000 now (pulls out a huge wad of twenties) 11:11:51 heh, got it for $3,000 11:12:01 That's cool, MrReach =) 11:12:50 has 35,000 miles on it, and a receipt in the glove box for $2,000 worth of indutrial-quality tires that only have 5,000 miles on them 11:14:46 hah 11:14:53 probs: blown alternator ($50), leaky carb ($24+8), cracked fuel line to generator, $15 11:15:08 I want a plane with problems like that 11:15:22 a new cessna starts at $180k, but the older stuff is much more resonable, ESPECIALLY when it's broken 11:15:31 yes, I would VERY like to have an HU16 11:15:47 hu16? 11:17:11 twin radial engine, amphibious search and rescue 11:17:12 http://www.hu16.com/photo-gallery.html 11:17:38 cheapest I've seen is $100,000, but wouldn't trust it 11:17:58 nice 11:18:03 radial engines are beautiful 11:18:08 most expensive was $3,400,000, but was converted to an apartment with gold-plated fixtures 11:18:12 hahah 11:18:37 my dad flies a 172 .. and i take the controls when he takes me up 11:18:42 so I figure I'm looking at $200,000 to $250,000 for a reliable one up on its maint 11:18:50 i want to learn how to fly, but i need to be 17 to get the license 11:18:53 plus it's quite expensive 11:19:00 * MrReach nods. 11:19:14 i figure i'll self-teach ;-) 11:19:21 next time we go up i'm going to try some turns 11:19:48 Just get in the plane, get somebody to fly you up, and then take the controls. 11:20:00 yeah, that's what i do these days 11:20:00 (with my dad) 11:20:20 wow, the hu16 is quite large 11:20:20 * cleverdra was going to say something humorous, but decided not to. 11:20:31 ? 11:20:53 MrReach: i think a biplane would be awesome to fly 11:20:55 sounds like a cool plan, aaron =) What kind of a plane is a 172? 11:21:23 cleverdra: very basic, forgiving single-engine at 180 hp with a 6' dual-blade prop 11:21:42 cleverdra: four seats, VFR and IFR rated 11:21:52 cleverdra: basically cessna's most basic model 11:22:13 http://skyhawk.cessna.com/ 11:23:08 although we use the http://skyhawksp.cessna.com/ which is basically the same thing 11:23:20 --- join: cleverser (jfondren@1Cust216.tnt6.florence.sc.da.uu.net) joined #forth 11:23:24 it has leather seats and perhaps 20hp more power 11:24:47 --- quit: cleverdra (Ping timeout for cleverdra[1Cust129.tnt3.florence.sc.da.uu.net]) 11:24:53 --- nick: cleverser -> cleverdra 11:25:00 aiee, did you miss my explaination? ;-) 11:25:10 --- mode: ChanServ set mode: +o cleverdra 11:25:14 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o grurp 11:25:28 http://skyhawk.cessna.com/wallpaper/center_photo_05.jpg 11:25:30 Part of it =( 11:25:35 Thanks, aaron. 11:25:40 http://skyhawk.cessna.com/wallpaper/center_photo_07.jpg 11:26:27 OK 11:26:32 the nice part is it's the new model 11:26:38 so it's fuel-injected and has a GPS 11:26:54 we fly either a 1999 or a 2000, depending on what's available 11:27:02 the model has been made since i think the 1960's 11:27:37 --- quit: klooie (Ping timeout for klooie[213-84-79-23.adsl.xs4all.nl]) 11:28:15 http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20000321.gif 11:28:49 aaron - how often do you fly one? 11:29:31 maybe once a month. 11:29:45 my dad flies once a week but it's mostly training (he's learning IFR) 11:31:42 international flight rating? 11:33:11 information friend or foe ? 11:33:33 ifr is a little transmitter they put on mil acft 11:33:41 oh 11:33:43 tahts iff :P 11:36:46 cleverdra: instrument flight rating 11:36:54 cleverdra: allows you to fly into clouds, basically 11:37:31 ah. 11:37:33 one of my favorite features of the HU16 is the 12,800 lb cargo capacity 11:37:44 woo 11:38:12 in theory, I could load my one ton truck, fully loaded, and still be able to take off from water 11:38:28 heh, it only has one door, though, about 34" wide 11:39:00 that's cool =) 11:39:13 one of the things I hate is that it consumes 108 gals of aviation fuel every hour 11:39:37 that kind of money will eat you alive 11:40:51 any of yoiu ever see the move "Always"?? 11:41:06 about the firefighter who died and had to help his GF find a new mate? 11:41:28 I'd prefer not to see it. 11:41:33 why? 11:41:47 the plane that he flew was an HU16 11:42:18 108 gallons?!@?!@?!@ 11:42:20 shit. 11:42:34 the 172 only has 52 gallons of _capacity_ 11:42:42 it has a really cool opening scene when he was skimming a lake, refilling his tanks ... he scared a couple of guys out of their fishing boat, then "hopped" over it 11:44:07 it's a big plane 11:44:19 yeah 11:44:25 but with consumption at that rate, you might as well get a turboprop! 11:46:22 pan=96' 8", len = 61' 3" cruise = 150 mph, range - 2,800 miles, engines - Two 1,425-hp Wright R-1820-76A or -76B Cyclone 9-cylinder radial piston engines 11:46:34 pan = span 11:47:35 empty weight 22,883 lbs, roughly 11 tons 11:48:54 those are .. powerful engines 11:49:20 well, it's stopped raining, so I'm gonna go grease the front axles on my car, maybe replace the bearings 11:49:32 (they're squeeking) 11:51:22 --- topic: set to ': goto >r ;' by cleverdra 11:52:47 erf! no it hasn't 11:52:51 nm 11:53:31 MrReach? 11:54:07 yes? 11:54:57 you have a quest? 11:55:43 No, I thought you were speaking to me. ne'ermind. 11:58:17 damn it! "... are equipped with dealed hub and bearing assemblies. The hub and bearing assemblies are non-serviceable" 11:59:03 heh, no need wife home so she can drive car back and forth in front of me while I listen 11:59:22 --- nick: MrReach -> MrShower 12:01:58 So you were reaching before? 12:02:26 no, rea%Bk%Bing 12:04:01 no, reaking 12:04:04 heh 12:18:15 --- nick: MrShower -> MrReach 12:18:22 cleverdra: reaching for what? 12:23:19 Well, I assume that by MrShower you were taking a shower... 12:23:38 yep 12:23:46 clean now, much better 12:23:50 And now you're MrReach... 12:23:58 yep again 12:24:09 so, what're you reaching for? =) 12:24:22 I used to say "truth" 12:24:38 but that doesn't really make sense anymore 12:25:07 since I realized that there is no "absolute truth" 12:25:40 but I took the nick from the late 80s AT&T commercial "Reach out and touch someone" 12:25:48 and it still seems to apply 12:26:08 You can still reach for truth, but O.K. 12:26:44 ah! but whatever truth I find will apply only to myself 12:27:00 others will have other truths 12:27:34 so, by searching for "the truth", I might actually be injuring myself .... because I alienate myself from "the truth" of others 12:27:37 --- topic: set to ': k 0 , char , ; create keyt' by cleverdra 12:27:59 Truth is not relative or subjective. 12:28:10 yes, it is 12:28:37 it is dramatically colored by the perspective of the experiencer 12:28:55 A thing is black or it is not. A person is a liar or they are not. You can 1/5 black if we're talking about a different kind of black. None of these facts depend on the observer. 12:29:12 I have this picture ... from the book "7 Habits of Highly Successful People" by Stephen R. Covey ... 12:29:44 if you look at it one way, it's a hideous old lady with a huge wart on her nose 12:30:11 if you look at it another, it's a beautiful young lady with a graceful neck and good breeding 12:30:25 What Truth does this difference in opinion violate, MrReach? 12:30:48 I used to take this picture to parties until one man got pissed off at his friend about what they saw ... and broke his nose 12:31:20 "beauty" is observably a subjective impression for humans. 12:31:24 BOTH perspectives were entirely correct, and neither was "wrong" 12:31:42 nono, you misunderstand ... 12:31:53 Because they were based on subjective analysis. This does not invalidate Truth as an absolute. 12:31:57 --- join: rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay (robost86@h3n1fls33o898.telia.com) joined #forth 12:32:20 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay 12:32:21 one way, a particular line was the crones huge nose ... another way, it was the young lady's elegant chin 12:32:24 hello robert. 12:33:04 they really DID see two different images 12:33:08 MrReach - literally, one of these must be wrong. "crone" implies old. "young" explies =) young. 12:33:32 it all depended on how the person first interpreted lines 12:33:56 the "truth", if there is such a thing, is that it was a piece of paper with lines on it 12:34:05 MrReach - I can understand one person not being attracted to a person because that person is "too old" while another is not repulsed by this because that person is not "too old", but this is again subjective analysis. The difference does not invalidate truth as an absolute. 12:34:20 no, you're missing the point 12:34:41 the did NOT perceive the same set of lines 12:34:43 What point am I missing? 12:34:50 even though they were looking at the same paper 12:35:02 MrReach - perception is a matter of light, eyes, and brains. 12:35:19 perception is colored by past experience 12:35:32 i.e. is colored by expectation 12:35:39 MrReach - if the nature of the paper (OK, we're talking about a paper) is such that two different images can be drawn from it, fine, but this still does not invalidate truth as an absolute. 12:36:17 that assumes that there is "truth" that lies outside the realm of perception 12:36:22 For instance, a simple cube drawn on paper can often be percieved as being "based" in many ways. It's a fun trick to play. Which way you choose to percieve it, does not affect it. 12:36:46 No it doesn't, MrReach, it implies that the paper is a certain way. A is A. 12:36:46 that is correct ... the "truth" is some ink on paper 12:37:22 I don't understand your assertion after the elipsis here. 12:37:24 but we refuse to see "truth" ... instead we see a cube, with either the left or right vertex toward the front 12:38:06 we insist on interpreting what we see with what we know 12:38:26 if you show people that drawing and say, "What do you see?" 12:38:35 No, we see the the lines on the paper. The sensory information is just that. We can percieve a third dimension in a 2-dimensional object, but this is our sense of perception trying to map what we see to a three-dimensional world, and it still does not invalidate truth as an absolute. 12:38:56 you will, invariably, get the same answer, "A cube" 12:39:26 very very few people will say "paper with ink on it" 12:39:54 ok, perhaps you're right 12:39:56 If you say, "it is a cube", you're correct with the context that you interpret what you see to form a cube. If you say, "it's a bunch of lines on a paper", you're still correct in the context that you interpret it as a bunch of lines on a paper. If you say, "it is a koala bear with faerie wings who is singing to me", you are either lying or damaged somehow. 12:40:11 drugs'll do that =) 12:40:34 maybe I should change my words to "We can never discuss truth, because our perception and expectations prevent us from understanding it" 12:40:46 OK. You're wrong =) 12:41:05 We can discuss the truth of a statement in the context of assumed and given assertions and the laws of logic. 12:41:22 erm ... and what are the axioms? 12:42:08 perceived events? 12:42:09 Now you're probably in philosophy, or maybe mathematics. You probably now mathematics, so... you want to look at the Epistemology and Metaphysics branches of philosophy. 12:42:38 Watch out, there's a lot of crap in some philosophies :-/ 12:42:42 yes, that's what brought to these conclusions in the first place 12:42:59 do you think the lack of truth to be crap? 12:43:23 If you say that truth does not exist, or that truth cannot be discussed, YES. 12:43:38 I still hold that "truth" ... like "beauty" ... is in the eye of the beholder 12:43:52 Try and live in a world where no observation can be trusted and no discussion can be made. You'll die or go insane and die. 12:44:13 Well, you'll already be insane. 12:44:22 and that something that is very true for one person can be very UNtrue for another person ... and that they are both correct 12:44:39 Truth is not like "beauty", MrReach. A is always A. It is never not-A. 12:44:52 cleverdra: ever meet and honest-to-goodness ghost? 12:45:14 If I say, "I was once hit in the knee"... 12:45:20 MrReach - can't say that I have, or knew it. Why? 12:45:24 I live in a world where perception is not to be trusted 12:45:40 where what I see is not neccessarily what it appears to be 12:46:05 perhaps I am insane, but I've a good conversationalist 12:46:09 MrReach - oh? Then you suck. No! Wait, I didn't say that -- how can you know that I said that? Obviously you can't. You can't know that a gun will kill you. You can't know anything at all. (See?) 12:46:23 that is correct 12:46:31 MrReach - OK. 12:46:51 well, I don't know about the "you suck" part 12:46:53 MrReach - do you realize that you are insane, that you have accepted a vicious and inhuman philosophy which robs you of intelligence or reason? =) 12:46:59 MrReach - a joke. 12:47:19 heh, you're not the first person to say that 12:47:31 others say that I sacrifice goats and small children 12:47:52 (I generally ignore them, btw) 12:48:11 MrReach - I'm not surprised that you wonder if every bit of sensory information that comes to you is derived from a massive computer network, that you've never seen the real world and can't because you are trapped, and that all other humans (those that are real) are trapped in this simulation with you. 12:48:34 MrReach - well, I'd hope that you don't sacrifice small children. 12:48:42 heh, I'm not a paranoid delusional 12:48:48 You're not? 12:48:51 How do you know? 12:49:11 because I'm still fully functional in the society I live in 12:49:22 You've stated that no observation can be trusted! Your eyes tell you one thing, but what you see could be totally different. Every sense is a liar. What is may be not or may be something else. 12:49:36 (a bit of a recursive argument, I know, but psychology is full of such things) 12:49:41 MrReach - you are functional to the extent that you act contrary to your asserted beliefs. 12:49:56 no, you misunderstood 12:50:06 MrReach - OK. What did I misunderstand? 12:50:09 I have X sensory input 12:50:17 that can't be argued with 12:50:24 I'm glad you don't argue with it =) 12:50:39 but it could happen that someone observing the same event had Y sensory input 12:51:03 --- nick: rob_ert_ver_y_far_aw_ay -> rob_ert 12:51:16 that leads to COMPLETELY different interpetations and then behavior 12:51:23 If their sensory organ has efficiency differing from yours, sure, otherwise they aren't observing the same event. 12:51:54 when two people observe the same thing and see two different things, which is wrong? 12:52:01 is one of them always wrong? 12:52:51 MrReach - do you accept that sensory input is not the same as "this is a box"? That what you see is color and intensity in a two-dimensional field with three-dimensional overlay through triangulation between your two eyes? That your hearing and taste and touch and smell senses work like this too? 12:52:52 or could it happen that their experiences have so radically affected their perception that they actually SEE the same event differently? 12:53:42 If I look in the direction of a red brick house, the information being literally given to me involves the light coming into my eyes from it. 12:54:40 ok, suppose yoiu grew up on a ranch with a bright-red barn ... and you were given a 1/10 sec flash of a picture of a brick house 12:54:48 no, please answer the question 12:55:01 (I'm going somewhere with this =) 12:55:11 which one? about the box? 12:55:36 Yeah, and the question right after it, and do you accept that the statement I made about the red brick house is true? 12:55:52 it might be presumed that the same light patterns could be reaching both persons 12:56:06 OK, you answer 'yes'. 12:56:21 no, I hadn't, but I will ... "yes" 12:56:50 becasue otherwise we are discussing the validy of physical existance, which is really another topic 12:56:58 I was discussing 'truth" 12:57:12 I'm saying this to clarify some of the terminology. Let's call this sensory input, all the raw information from the environment, "sense", OK? I can't say that I sense a red house, because the information given me doesn't include red house, just the light coming from it and such. 12:58:06 ok, let's make that assumption ... I have an different perspective of that ... but that's only marginally related to "truth" 12:58:07 Now, there's another level of, um, conciousness, right above this one. It's called "perception". This is the part where you correlate what you sense to facts deducable from them. 12:58:17 yep 12:58:39 don't underestimate the criticallity of that layer 12:58:58 I think this is where we're arguing =) We're not talking about concepts, the next level, or sense, the previous level -- we're talking about the function of the human brain that turns lines on a paper to "a box" or "lines on a paper". 12:59:04 because it draws on cognition to label the environ 12:59:18 yep 13:00:01 Now, if two people sense the same thing, a red ball, and one says "a red ball" and the other says "a blue bearded giant", would you agree that one of them is not acting totally from the information given? 13:00:31 I'm saying that perception is so colored by past experience and by present expectations ... that "truth" cannot be absolute, regardless of sensory input 13:00:42 or even forget the assertion that what they're looking at is a red ball. It may be anything. In that case, at *least* one of them is wrong, because their answers are contradictory. 13:01:14 MrReach - if you sense red, then you percieve red or you don't! If you don't, then you are wrong in your perception. The fact that you mispercieve does not mean that truthful perception cannot be made! 13:01:30 sorry about the '!'s there :-/ 13:01:48 If I saw a ball, and somebody pointed to me and said "watch out of the blue bearded giant" ... i would become curious, "What blue-bearded giant? I see a red ball." 13:02:11 pointed to it, rather 13:02:29 I would not assume they were wrong, or that I was, or that either of us were 13:02:35 Yeah, you assume that they sense something else -- because you do not doubt that what you see is a red ball. You don't doubt your sensory information, and you don't (then) doubt your perception of it. 13:03:03 But you are asserting that two people sense THE SAME THING. 13:03:03 no, I PERCEIVE a red ball ... not SEE it 13:03:44 OK, percieve. your sensory information, however, contradicts what you percieved being a red ball. 13:04:19 being a blue giant, I meant to say. It can't be a blue giant. 13:04:56 I cannot trust what I perceive 13:05:09 because it is colored by my expectations 13:05:26 * rob_ert notices that this channel is different... Check all other channels with short lines of lame jokes and misc. chat about nothing. But in this room there's long sentences, page up and page down of long messages... 13:05:34 Now if you sense a woman's face, that's fine, you sense her face -- I shouldn't say "her face", because questions like "is it a face?" and even the distinction of the face between everything else sensed doesn't happen until you reach the perceptual level of conciousness. 13:05:45 rob_ert: is that good or bad? 13:05:52 hmmmm 13:05:56 good 13:05:57 =) 13:06:09 cleverdra: that's correct 13:06:21 So you percieve a face, you percieve flaws that may exist and makeup and smoothness and all that. You don't directly percieve beauty. Beauty is a concept, see? 13:06:23 cleverdra: that's what I'm trying to say about "truth" 13:06:35 MrReach - what are you trying to say? 13:07:02 one cannot perceive a face w/o cognition, am I paraphrasing you correctly? 13:07:31 There's a concept of a face, yes. I have blurred that assertion a bit. 13:07:57 ... " I shouldn't say "her face", because questions like "is it a face?" and even the distinction of the face between everything else sensed doesn't happen until you reach the perceptual level of conciousness. 13:08:25 "truth" suffers from the same handicap 13:08:44 I don't understand how it does. What do you mean? 13:09:12 "truth" cannot exist without cognition ... thought ... experienctial or otherwise 13:09:42 so "truth" is mallable, just like "her face" 13:11:05 Please define "truth" a bit more, now. It's true that you sense redness and light and lack of these. It's true that, given definition of what makes a face, you can distinguish a persons face from the rest of them and make observations upon it. It's true that, at the perceptual level, you provide basic information on what you sense that is necessary to fit it into concepts that you have. 13:11:41 ok, I said there was no "absolute truth" 13:12:07 What do you mean by "absolute truth"? 13:13:13 from mirriam-webster ... "3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being 13:13:13 in accord with fact or reality 13:13:49 You're saying that nothing can be in accord with reality? 13:13:51 and then absolute truth is a fact or reality that is truth for every person or organism 13:14:11 There is no "truth for" here, but "reality". 13:14:17 not "nothing" ... only that each person has "a truth" 13:14:43 in most cases, our truths agree 13:14:51 You're saying that reality is a personal thing, that your reality is your own and unattached to that of others? 13:14:54 and there is little to say about such situations 13:15:15 influenced by others, certainly, but yes, independant 13:15:26 OK, you're wrong =) 13:15:35 and that includes perception, also 13:15:41 This is actually an espistemological question. 13:16:27 yes, I had thought that from the beginning 13:16:34 For instance, let's say you have a philosophy whose Epistemology is that the following axioms are true: 13:17:01 because I perceive "truth" differently than you do (or most people) 13:17:16 le me re-emphasise that last statement ... 13:17:27 because I PERCEIVE "truth" differently than you do (or most people) 13:17:49 A) existence exists in my mind and that of every other organism, B) existence has identity as determined by my mind and every other person, and C) my mind determines identity and existence 13:17:56 even if we define it as the same thing 13:18:16 I tried to adiquately describe the axioms of what I draw to be your philosophy. 13:18:35 hmmm ... sort of 13:18:46 --- topic: set to '#philosophy_and_forth : k 0 , char , ; create keyt' by rob_ert 13:19:25 C) my mind interprets my existance and identity for me 13:20:05 here is where we might disagree ... "truth depends on perception rather than sight" 13:20:09 OK, these three statements are the basis of your reality. How can you know that other people exist? By A and B you can percieve them, but A, B, and C say that what you percieve is determined by your method of perception! You can't see a rock, because you can't know that a rock exists. What you are really doing is choosing to believe that a rock exists and that it is there and all the other details in rock-ness and reality. 13:20:40 yes, roughly 13:21:18 OK... let me, by contrast, share with you the corresponding axioms set by the Epistemology I hold: 13:22:28 A) existence exists, B) existence has identity, and C) conciousness observes existence ... see? I'm saying that reality is external to myself, that I observe it. Light comes to my eyes, I percieve it, I fit it into my conceptual make-up. 13:22:46 here is where we might disagree ... "truth depends on perception rather than sight" 13:23:07 even though perception is predicated on the sense 13:23:41 GOD! it's good to find someone who understands this stuff! 13:23:47 How can that be? You're saying that what you make out of the raw information of reality is the basis for truth, instead of the raw information of reality? 13:23:58 that is correct 13:24:04 Well, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself =) 13:24:40 I know lots of people ... most of whom say "Huh?" when I say "truth is personal" ... and then change the subject 13:25:03 usually to something like gaming or automobiles or sex 13:25:22 "truth" is a child of cognition 13:25:39 and therefore relies on perception 13:25:46 --- join: klooie (kloo@213-84-79-23.adsl.xs4all.nl) joined #forth 13:25:53 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +o klooie 13:25:53 perception is not JUST sight and the other senses 13:25:57 OK. so... if one person integrates sense involving light into the perception that there is no light, and another person integrates the same sense, but percieves blue light where the sense was of red light, you say that both of these perceptions are correct, *because* they are perceptions? The people who make them can make their assertions and be correct? 13:26:42 I say they *CAN* be correct 13:26:42 "I don't see anything!" "I see blue light!" 13:27:05 it is rare that something so dramatic happens 13:27:23 but, because of the role of cognition in perception, it could happen like that 13:27:28 yeah, I asserted here that the sense was of red light, but such an assertion depends on the existence of reality seperate from the observers, but you say that reality is personal. 13:27:43 ok, now you're starting to get it 13:27:44 --- quit: grurp (Bye all) 13:27:54 hello klooie. 13:28:19 the sense do not exist w/o perception ... else is a dark and colorless world 13:28:27 Where does this raw sensory information come from then, MrReach? 13:28:47 an interesting discussion, too bad i have to go to bed. 13:29:01 I'd respond to the assertion you just made wrt the world that it's obviously wrong, because we can percieve light and color. 13:29:06 something in the evironment ... some we CANNOT perceive w/o influence of our own cognition 13:29:14 klooie - it's kinda wierd now... 13:29:33 Goodnight. 13:29:49 oh ... you taking off? 13:29:57 No, I was talking to klooie. 13:30:05 ok 13:30:07 Good Night klooie 13:30:12 good night, klooie 13:30:15 * cleverdra hums. 13:30:35 thanks all. :) 13:30:38 there is no way to perceive JUST the light 13:30:58 perception is colored by past experience and current expectations 13:31:23 but that's exactly what your eyes do, MrReach. They get color and light information and send it to your brain, where integrations on the perceptual and conceptual level take place. 13:31:43 ok, that is what my eyes do 13:31:48 just by this, you have to believe that light and color exist, else you deny your basic senses. 13:32:11 I cannot PERCEIVE light without cognition 13:32:32 ergo ... my thoughts affect what I PERCEIVE 13:33:15 picture a loop ... perception feeds cognition ... cognition affects perception 13:33:23 round and round and round 13:33:36 and then ... a constant input of "sight" 13:33:50 MrReach - I think that I've failed here, in failing to adequately define the perceptual level of conciousness. 13:33:51 to one or the other or both 13:34:00 there are people ... 13:34:23 whose loop is so tightly bound they cannot perceive enternal stimuli at all ... autism 13:34:29 MrReach - what you're saying doesn't happen. Your perceptions happen independently of your conception upon them, as your senses work independently of your perceptions made from them. 13:34:45 no, perception is not independant 13:34:49 MrReach - I think the technical reason for autism is that those cannot differentiate what they see. 13:34:57 SIGHT is independant 13:35:27 but "sight" ends at the eyeball 13:35:27 MrReach - I think we've reached an impasse :-( 13:36:03 Yes, and from the information given from your eyes you make perceptions. 13:36:08 as SOON as we start grouping photons, we are perceiving ... and this has input from cognition 13:36:48 * aaronl is away: quake 13:37:08 What input does it have from cognition, MrReach? 13:37:30 "do all the red photons belong in a group?" 13:37:40 "Does that group have any vertices?" 13:37:54 "Is that the closes group?" 13:38:11 "Is it adjacent to any other groups?" 13:38:14 I would call these perceptions. Otherwise, how do you define perception? 13:38:35 that is how I define the lowest level-perceptions 13:38:44 not that each of those moves up a level 13:39:03 these are learned behavior, and we take what we ahve learned for granted 13:39:26 the mistake is in assuming that others have always learned the same things 13:39:58 sigh. OK. 13:40:07 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_aw_ay 13:40:09 the tests for color blindness are an EXCELLENT example of this 13:40:19 if they are used out of context 13:40:41 two people perceiving the same things, but PERCEIVING something different 13:40:52 sorry, seeing ... perceiving 13:40:55 No, color blindness is a failure in the sensory organ. 13:41:16 yes, but both people will vehemently argue that the other is incorrect 13:41:18 It's understandable that two people given different sense information would percieve that information differently. 13:41:23 but they're both right 13:41:41 I can see both patterns in the color-blind test 13:41:55 * rob_ert_aw_ay is color-blind and left handed 13:42:07 heh 13:42:09 * rob_ert_aw_ay is away, btw 13:42:13 By ignoring at the conceptual level one of the colors, sure. You still percieve both colors, and you still sense them. 13:42:24 * MrReach laughs out loud. 13:42:35 robert - well, you're with 15% of all men, I think =) 13:42:42 'least on the color-blind part. 13:42:49 hehe 13:42:52 yeah 13:42:58 no, most people train themselves to perceive the world in one way or another ... and the CANNOT see the other pattern 13:43:02 10% somtehing on the left-handed part 13:43:46 you know what's strange? I _cannot_ do the posters where the wavey lines form an image if you unfocus your eyes 13:43:51 MrReach - so what you're saying is that there is no difference between a color-blind person and a not-color-blind person, except that one of them is part of the majority on the issue? 13:44:02 I can unfocus my eye just fine, spend a major part of my day like that 13:44:26 MrReach - there's a technique for those. You have to adjust your focus to be a certain point. 13:44:38 behind the paper =) 13:44:43 no, I'm using it as an example ... a color-ful person SEES when the color blind person does, plus some 13:45:11 but they have trained ther perceptions and cannot see the other pattern 13:45:42 cleverdra: I've tried focusing my eyes every which way 13:46:03 had people help by holding fingers at various distances to help change the focus 13:46:12 done it straight, stoned, drunk 13:46:32 just doesn't work for me, my PERCEPTION won't allow it 13:46:42 but, if you accept that a color-ful person senses more than the color blind person does, and that the color-ful person makes perceptions given this fuller information, then why can't you accept that the color-ful person's cognitive assertions based on these perceptions are more correct than the color-blind person's, who can't sense the disguishing color change? 13:46:58 perhaps for the same reasons that I can see both images in a color-blind test 13:47:33 cleverdra: because, usually, the color-ful person CANNOT perceive the other pattern 13:47:50 Perhaps your deep philosophical beliefs have led to your ability to edit what you admit to your concious =) 13:47:51 no matter how hard they try 13:48:10 cleverdra: ok, lets assume that's true ... 13:48:39 then don't all philosophical beliefs color all perception 13:48:43 mrreach i found out what that problem was with my not being able to get to etrade.com etc 13:48:45 oh, now I see the smiley, sorry 13:48:56 I440r: what was it? 13:48:56 i had ecn enabled in my kernel - grrr 13:49:04 what is ecn?? 13:49:19 explicit congestion notification 13:49:27 firewalls dont like it because its b0rken 13:49:41 heh, I guess it is 13:49:43 I don't understand what you mean with "CANNOT percieve the other pattern". What pattern? If you sense the color, why would you deny that sense? It's easy to say, "oh, if that color were the same as *that* color, then everything would be the same color". 13:50:12 but people *DO* deny that other pattern 13:50:13 different shades of gray ???? hehe 13:50:24 what's b0rken, I440r? your firewall or the protocol? 13:50:24 ecn 13:50:33 the kernel mod 13:50:34 hm. 13:50:49 ok, cleverdra, have you ever taken the color blind test? 13:50:51 no i think its ecn thats broken 13:51:42 I'll describe the mechanics of it, if you want me to 13:51:47 MrReach - briefly. I was shown a few slides. 13:51:59 ok, did you ever see the OTHER pattern? 13:52:23 MrReach - it's a bunch of circles, two are different. You've two groups, and one of them forms a number. 13:52:32 MrReach - what is the other pattern? 13:52:33 correct 13:52:52 a color-blind person will see a different number altogether 13:53:02 No, a color-blind person will not a see a number. 13:53:23 Because all the circles would look the same, see? 13:53:25 the test's I took were binomial 13:53:34 oh, OK. How did those tests go? 13:53:42 one number was shaded by color, the other by intensity 13:54:04 Oh, so there were two numbers, formed by different disguishing marks. That's interesting. 13:54:14 s/marks/characteristics/ 13:54:22 the color-ful people focused on color differences, and saw one number 13:54:42 color-blind people could only see diffs in intensity 13:54:50 and saw a different number altogether 13:55:40 Well, that's clever. One of them sensed the color difference and focused on it, and the other didn't sense it and focused on the only number that *could* be focused on. 13:55:47 however, most color-ful people cannot see the other pattern no matter how hard they try 13:56:08 and that illustrates the role of cognition in perception 13:56:15 intensity between colors *is* kindof hard to catch beyond the color intensity itself. 13:56:21 they could NOT untrain they way they "saw" 13:56:23 What cognition? 13:56:59 I mean, the only cognition here is around the part where you decide that what you're looking at is a number and a certain number. 13:57:05 the other pattern is there to see, some people can see it 13:57:31 no, cognition goes MUCH deeper than that 13:57:57 it goes all the way down into the fundamental questions of "what groups of photons belong in a group" 13:58:13 "what photons belong in a group" 13:58:41 Isn't what you're saying a bit like the argument that two people back-to-back are seeing different parts of the same room? One person observed one number and another observed a different number, but this is because they focused on different parts of the "room", so to speak. 13:58:57 sort of, yes 13:59:17 --- nick: rob_ert_aw_ay -> rob_ert 13:59:21 but two different people looking the same way can PERCEIVE different things 13:59:47 even at a VERY fundamental level of what most people think of as "sight" 14:00:02 Well, if the wall one person is looking at has a mirror, and the wall the other person is looking at has a picture, and they tried to discuss the two walls as if they were one wall, they'd obviously have problems -- because they do not realize that they are looking at two different walls. 14:00:17 the assumption there is that photon stimiluation is carried verbatim into the "the mind" 14:00:30 MrReach - again, by organic differences in the sensory organ, sure. 14:00:57 even if they are looking at the same wall and the same picture, they can PERCEIVE two very different things 14:01:26 MrReach - no, I'm talking about two people actually standing back to back in a room. This is analogous to your discussion of the color-blind test, in which two people focus on different parts of it due to differences in their eyes. 14:01:32 but they assume they are SEEING the different things 14:01:45 MrReach - please explain how they could percieve two very different things. 14:02:06 no, I was talking about the differences between two color-ful people taking the test 14:02:32 MrReach - I'm inclined to believe that the difference there is that one doesn't think of it and one does, or even, again, organic differences. 14:02:34 I was given the color blind test in high school, and failed it utterly 14:02:55 MrReach - hah! They didn't check and see if you saw the color-differentiated number, too? 14:02:58 I was asked repeatedly "What number do you see" ... I'd reply "4 and 8" 14:03:20 or "1 and 9" 14:03:29 drove them absolutely nutzo's 14:03:40 MrReach - oh. Then your instructor wasn't versed in the procedure, else she'd know what was going on. 14:03:43 * aaronl is back (gone 00:26:55) 14:04:15 intructor was versed, I had voluteered to be the first, as a demo to the class 14:04:16 wb mr. Aaronl 14:04:53 but i discover that MOST of the color-ful people could NOT see the other pattern 14:04:59 That's cool, anyway, but I don't see how it invalides objective truth. You say that there are two numbers there... well, that's because there *are* two numbers there. The instructor isn't bothering to look for the other, or can't, that doesn't mean that you are wrong. It means that she is wrong by saying that there is only one number, because she hasn't gotten all the facts. She'd be right if she said that she saw only one number. 14:05:07 MrReach - hm. 14:05:19 because "truth" is predicated on perception 14:05:27 and perception is mallable 14:05:56 MrReach - again, what about organic differences or focus differences? If I see a horse, I may not always check to see that it isn't two people in a very cunningly maid suit. Is this the difference you describe? 14:06:09 made. 14:06:15 what's more, we influence our own perception at a level so deep we could not possibly account for how it influences us 14:06:46 hmmm ... no, but it's close 14:07:02 you're assuming that it either isn't a horse or it isn't 14:07:21 let's abstract it, then, Rosach test 14:07:40 MrReach - but two humans beings with an almost identical range in what they can sense, similar upbringings, similar development (very *regular* development)... 14:07:45 OK. What about the Rosach test? 14:07:51 you understand that the labels that people apply to the inkblots are based entirely upon their past experience? 14:08:08 and present expectations? 14:08:13 I don't know about the psychology involved, but I'll accept that. 14:08:58 ok, then it's not too hard a stretch to surmise that such influences extend MUCH deeper into "sight" than concious cognition 14:09:26 I once had a Rosach test, and I was so uncomfortable that I said "people" to nearly every slide, because my imagination (lovely demon that *it* is... I'm joking :-/) led me through a series of obscene pictures. I didn't really see those pictures from the inkblots, I overlayed my imaginings upon the inkblots. 14:09:36 I think it's pretty hard to stretch, MrReach =) 14:09:46 that anything past the eyeball itself is "perception" ... not "sight" 14:09:54 You still see the black dots, you just integrate them differently. This is an obviously subjective exercise. 14:10:12 correct 14:10:32 Anything past the eyeball is raw sensory information, color and intensity and relative position. 14:10:36 BUT ... it is caused by thoughts influencing the perceptions 14:10:55 in that case, its obviously an inkblot that you have to make up stuff about 14:11:37 OK. If I'm thinking of pizza all day, and someone shoes me a large yellow circle with three red dots in it, I may, for a moment, see a pizza. I've done it. I've read a word1 as word2 over and over again, and be embarrased when I realized it. 14:11:38 but the same thing happens with "sight" ... and we are quite unaware of it 14:12:21 "perception" begins at a very low level, and it is colored by present cognition 14:12:23 and been. But the fact that I do this does not cancel out every observation that I make. I think GEB actually talks about this. 14:12:45 nearly every person in my class had the hardware to see both numbers 14:13:08 both most people could NOT see the other pattern ... why? 14:13:31 only three of us in 32, actually, and one of use was c/b in green 14:15:36 OK. But you are drawing from this the idea that all of reality, and not merely isolated differences in perception or "flukes" in perception, is subjective. If people are similar at all, and if you accept that there are other people, are you at least admitting that these people exist independently of your perception of them? That the two numbers are there, regardless of the fact that most people didn't percieve them? 14:17:11 yes, I agree with these things 14:17:11 hm. let me go back to the axioms you accepted earlier. 14:17:11 A) existence exists in my mind and that of every other organism, B) existence has identity as determined by my mind and every other person, and C) my mind determines identity and existence 14:17:11 --- quit: MrReach (Read error to MrReach[209.181.43.184]: Connection reset by peer) 14:17:11 Do you still believe these, given that your perceptions do not determine what you're percieving? 14:17:41 Philosoph #2 died... 14:18:02 oops. 14:18:12 --- join: MrReach (mrreach@209.181.43.184) joined #forth 14:18:14 Thanks, robert. I totally ignored that =) 14:18:26 hm. let me go back to the axioms you accepted earlier. 14:18:29 A) existence exists in my mind and that of every other organism, B) existence has identity as determined by my mind and every other person, and C) my mind determines identity and existence 14:18:29 =) 14:18:33 Do you still believe these, given that your perceptions do not determine what you're percieving? 14:18:48 I had corrected C 14:19:25 ok, look, there's an existance outside myself 14:19:29 Oh, yes... "truth depends on perception rather than sight" 14:19:31 OK. 14:19:53 now, I don't NOT eprceive that existence verbatim 14:20:19 I perceive that existence through many many layers of cognition that I can not control 14:20:40 So you're saying that most of the time people percieve the same subset of existence, but that sometimes, for various reasons, they can percieve *different* but *still real* subsets of existence, and that both of their observations based on these perceptions are true? 14:20:52 so what I am perceiving may or may not be what is actually there 14:21:04 yes! 14:21:14 OK =) I totally agree with that =) 14:21:16 hurrah! 14:21:20 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +o MrReach 14:21:31 oops. Thanks rob_ert. 14:21:32 ok, now this leads to "no absolute truth" 14:21:39 hehe 14:21:51 wait, isn't the external existence the absolute truth? 14:22:06 does "truth" exist w/o cognition? 14:22:20 YES. 14:22:29 or does truth exist w/o perception? 14:22:54 That's like, "if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?" 14:22:59 ok, let's say that truth exists its own entity or circumstance 14:23:12 You don't have to percieve its sound directly to know, physically, that it *must* make one. 14:23:17 can any of us perceive absolute truth? 14:23:17 I can't discuss philosophy without getting into quantum mechanics 14:23:32 hehe 14:23:49 The most strange you can think of... 14:23:49 go for it, aaronl 14:23:59 No! 14:24:03 I am really not in the mood 14:24:03 MrReach - that's asking, if absolute truth is all ofexternal existence, if we can percieve all of reality. Obviously we can't. I can't directly percieve the atoms that make up my glass or my body. I can't percieve X-rays. 14:24:06 i am exhausted 14:24:46 aaron - if you bring up Shrodinger's Cat at this time, I'll beat you senseless, OK? :+) 14:24:49 cleverdra: in most cases, "truth" is much more ambiguous than "gavity exists" 14:24:50 hahaha 14:25:03 I have no prob w/ the cat 14:25:22 I do =) Let's not go there, it'd only lead us back to where we are. 14:25:31 yes, it's a total mind-bend 14:26:07 I'm gonna run over to kino's tonight and spend the $5 to have that image scanned 14:26:18 kino's = Kinko's 14:26:23 MrReach - what do you mean? When is truth more ambiguous? 14:26:32 What's "Kinko"'s? 14:26:39 usually along the lines of "murder is wrong" 14:26:41 "Kinko's" even. 14:26:57 a photocopy shop 14:27:05 MrReach - oh. Yeah, that's a bit higher up the philosophical tree, way up there in Morality. 14:27:07 they have expanded into other publishing services 14:27:23 yes, and truth becomes even more vague 14:28:10 but each of us carries a "map" of how the universe works, and that's all we have to navigate 14:28:17 MrReach - I'd say that you have to accept more axioms at this stage. You have to ask basic questions like, "is life good?" "is the life of others good?" "what *is* 'good' anyway?" "why should I be good?" "why should others be good?" 14:28:26 if it ain't on the map, we don't see it 14:28:43 MrReach - but none of this has to do with perception or "is that a red ball or a blue giant?" 14:29:13 it is possible for two people to perceive both those things, or one or the other 14:29:19 Of course, most people wrt Morality accept what they're told and mimic what they see and don't bother with asking the questions. 14:29:44 it is *POSSIBLE* for that scenario to happen 14:29:58 MrReach - if both a red ball and a blue giant are there, sure. If one percieves what is actually not in any form there, that person I'd say is damaged somehow. 14:30:24 more than likely one of the perceptions is false, but not neccessarily 14:30:33 Yes. I agree. 14:30:44 this is an extreme stretch caused by an extreme example 14:31:30 here is an example, two people are walking down a road, they come to a bridge 14:31:37 OK. 14:31:54 a hairy monster climbs from under the bridge ... 14:32:14 ("OK." -- interpretation successful. DEPTH is 1 ... sorry =) 14:32:19 OK. 14:32:20 the American thinks "bigfoot" and expects a certain behavior 14:32:47 the German thinks "troll" and expects a completely different behavior 14:33:05 one stands still, the other runs like hell 14:33:30 because of past experience, none particularly associated with this input 14:34:08 that same circumstance also colors "truth" 14:34:53 But both of them see a hairy monster. Maybe one focuses on (or manufactures?) observations that support his beliefs, but they both see the same thing. They would both be true to describe what they saw, objectively, but their conclusions re "bigfoot" and "troll" are another matter, one that depends on concepts like "bigfoot" and "troll". 14:37:01 I'm done. =) What truth is colored here? 14:38:23 the "truth" of what it was that climbed from under the bridge 14:39:07 I guess all this is leading to "It's a moot point about whether this is actually 'a truth', because none of us is capable of perceiving it." 14:39:22 this = there 14:40:12 --- join: darkside (berk@195.54.28.242) joined #forth 14:40:16 No, they both percieved exactly what climbed from under the bridge. What does their interpretation have to do with general truth? False statements don't invalidate true statements. 14:40:21 heya, darkside 14:40:27 welcome to philosophy chan ;) 14:40:31 MrReach: yay 14:40:34 hello darkside. As you can see, this is #philosophy_and_forth, but don't hesitate to takl about either. 14:40:48 rob_ert: hrm.... forth is philosophy... i agree with this point 14:40:48 * cleverdra grins. 14:40:52 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +o darkside 14:40:58 heh 14:41:07 TOTAL ops chan 14:41:09 geez, thanks rob_ert. I'm getting slow on my ops. 14:41:14 Hehe 14:41:15 --- mode: darkside set mode: +v darkside 14:41:26 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +v rob_ert 14:41:31 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: -v rob_ert 14:41:40 new fashion :) 14:41:40 Hmm 14:41:44 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +vv cleverdra clog 14:41:52 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +vvvv dired futhin I440r klooie 14:42:02 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +vv nate37 rob_ert 14:42:06 Yes it is. 14:42:13 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: -v rob_ert 14:42:18 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: +m 14:42:19 Say "goodbye" to your no-ops, no-voice channels. 14:42:21 --- mode: darkside set mode: -o darkside 14:42:25 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: -m 14:42:29 suppose 15 people in a room see a red ball, and only one sees a blue-bearded-giant (could you have pick an example that wasn't so arduous to type?) 14:42:34 dissident. 14:43:01 heh 14:43:03 is that person then "wrong"? 14:44:00 MrReach - most likely the one seeing the blue-bearded-giant is WRONG. Much less likely is that both are there and that only that person can see it. Totally rediculous is the idea that the red ball, and exactly the red ball, would be conceptualized as a blue-bearded-giant. A person that does this latter is insane. 14:44:29 cleverdra: why not "another-way-minded" ? 14:44:34 perhaps, it *IS* an extreme example after all 14:44:40 cleverdra: well, this is "insane" iow 14:45:17 ok, then, not "wrong", but "insane" 14:45:20 anyone: example of search in forth? 14:45:31 search for what 14:45:34 what type of search? 14:45:46 darkside - because we're assuming that he's not severely different in the wetware, OK? =) If you really see blue giants for red balls, and you're not insane, and there really is a red ball there... I don't want to talk about that. 14:45:51 darkside - we were talking about one earlier 14:45:56 darkside - but... what kind of search 14:46:00 textual search in large database, some fields may be defined, some not, and/or search 14:46:25 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: -v darkside 14:46:38 heh, that's a good-sized chunk of code 14:46:41 rob_ert: grrr 14:46:52 or you could let the SQL server do the search 14:46:55 darkside - how are the fields defined? How is the database organized? What are you searching for? How do you want to seach it? Earlier we did a search on an eggdrop log for lines that involved somebody speaking. 14:47:08 okay 14:47:13 darkside: =) 14:47:17 what about an SQL server doing the search 14:47:22 --- mode: MrReach set mode: +o darkside 14:47:30 get 'im darkside! 14:47:42 how could we define what to search for and what search not 14:47:43 Yeah, that's cool. You just need to talk to the SQL server like any other language that talks to SQL servers =) 14:47:49 MrReach: heh... right 14:47:59 darkside - I dunno. I dunno SQL. 14:48:03 --- kick: rob_ert was kicked by darkside (grrrrrrrrrrrr) 14:48:05 --- join: rob_ert (robost86@h3n1fls33o898.telia.com) joined #forth 14:48:14 --- mode: darkside set mode: +o rob_ert 14:48:19 darkside: does the DB already exist? 14:48:22 --- mode: rob_ert set mode: -o darkside 14:48:27 please don't do that, OK? 14:48:30 * rob_ert feels safer now 14:48:32 rob_ert: grr :) 14:48:33 it's distracting. 14:48:37 Yes, sorry 14:48:37 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +o darkside 14:48:41 MrReach: well... it does 14:48:43 he started ;) 14:48:52 *** Mode change [-v darkside] on #forth by rob_ert 14:48:56 rob_ert: me? 14:48:58 what built the DB? 14:49:05 Yeah, he did. 14:49:09 MrReach: its an SQL database 14:49:26 oh, then certainly, let the sql server do it 14:49:49 darkside: Ok, ok... I am the bad guy... But please stop it, philosophs are sensitive ppl ;) 14:49:58 if you've already got the infrastructure in place to retrieve data, then it's in place to do queries 14:50:07 darkside - I think most database clients link to a C-coded libraries. You can do that in some forths. Alternatively, you can do what those libraries do... but I don't know what those libraries do and so can't help you. If you don't want to understand how the libraries do their thing, dynamic loading of C libraries is your answer. 14:50:09 rob_ert: i'm not doing anything :P 14:50:16 rob_ert: (unfortunately) :P 14:50:23 =) 14:50:54 cleverdra: hehe... are there any forth libraries for interacting with c code/sql servers? 14:50:55 (A, or B, or A) 14:51:16 --- mode: darkside set mode: +v darkside 14:51:22 darkside: on Linux that's gforth, on windows, it's win32forth 14:51:40 cleverdra: defining these things can be a bit hard esp if you have over 25 fields to search for 14:51:53 MrReach: hrm.. cool 14:52:00 darkside - not that I know of... creating a wrapper isn't difficult, you just need to know the names of the functions in C. gforth'll let you map symbols in shared-object C libraries to Forth words pretty effectively. 14:52:30 gforth also works on windows, but I dunno how it compares to win32forth. 14:52:39 cleverdra: gforth adn win32 both let you call into shared libs out-of-the-box 14:53:02 cleverdra: I think .DLLs are broken in gforth for windows 14:53:16 oh, too bad. 14:53:47 although I can't get the cygwin dist to be stable enough to check 14:54:03 the others dists are excellent, though, for stability 14:55:33 darkside - if you want a general Forth library for interacting with your SQL database, now's the time to do it =) You can always use it later. If you want something specific...well, then you don't have to flesh the database totally. If you don't want to do this at *all*, you'll have to find some code somebody's made for your particular implementation of loading symbols from DLLs (you're on windows?), or port something different. 14:56:06 alternatively, if you can't bother with any of these, you can 1) hire a programming =), or 2) use another language for which such support is already available. 14:56:30 cleverdra: i'm programmer myself, so no 1) :P 14:56:44 cleverdra: i'm using php now for 2) :P 14:57:05 Oh. So you just want to see how you'd do what you're doing in PHP now with Forth? 14:57:11 cleverdra: i'm just interesting in possibility of doing some projects using forth and sql server 14:57:44 cleverdra: and i'm currently doing that search in php... pretty fucked up thing i get i'd say :P 14:57:59 then you'll baby that library interface ... just like they do in Apache 14:58:48 OK. Forth is a bit different from other languages. A lot of this is so deep and historical that by starting out PHP you've a great trouble getting to where you can handle Forth well. I guess step #1 is to write Forth enough to manipulate the database. 14:59:27 talk to the database server, I mean. Right? 15:00:11 (I'm assuming here that the the SQL database is necessary, and that you can't blythely redesign it to something more optimal and less complex.) 15:00:19 blithely. 15:00:40 well, the SQL sublanguage is not that that complex 15:01:06 and the server provides about as optimal response time as you're going to fing 15:01:15 find, even 15:02:09 Well, if you're holding a hundred fixed-length lines mapped by increasing number... =) Just trying to lay out the alternatives. 15:02:15 darkside: have you looked into doing the search on the SQL server via PHP? 15:03:41 MrReach: huh? 15:04:07 most servers implement string matches internally, and they're FAST 15:04:35 MrReach: yep 15:04:49 darkside: how did that turn out for you? 15:05:13 is the query language too pimitive? 15:05:31 MrReach, he specifically wants to try the search with Forth as an alternative to PHP. 15:05:40 I can't imagine that moving the data somewhere, checking it qould be faster 15:05:57 well, the thing is ... 15:06:17 he's already got the DB written in PHP 15:06:25 the interface, anyway 15:07:18 maybe I'm misPERCEIVing the problem task 15:07:25 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=e597cfd78aff495,218&ic=1 -- a very interesting, and old, thread once on CLF. It doesn't really relate to the current topic. 15:07:40 MrReach - yeah, you'd think he'd use PHP. He wants to use Forth. 15:07:52 cleverdra: i'm just interesting in possibility of doing some projects using forth and sql server 15:08:06 ok 15:09:07 MrReach - http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20000409.gif =) I just ran across this. I don't consider it an argument in our previous discussion. 15:11:25 HAHAHA! 15:11:49 sinfest is occasionally funny =) 15:13:09 MrReach: SQL language is pretty cool... 15:13:29 yes, it is 15:13:53 it allows the programmer to dump the work of databasing to people who are good at it 15:14:17 I really wish that SQL had an associated socket-protocol, though 15:15:17 You can connect a port easily enough to a database, I think. internetorking facilities in the SQL itself would still be nice. 15:15:55 yes, but the protocol on the port seems to be server-dependant 15:16:11 * darkside couldn't imagine network interfacing in query language 15:16:17 there must be a library on the client machine to talk to the server 15:16:46 darkside: why? it would be just like POP, or NNTP, or SMTP 15:16:53 or HTTP for that matter 15:18:35 MrReach: thats the processing backend problem, not SQL language 15:18:54 no, that's not what I meant 15:19:16 with the other protocols, I can open a socket to the server, send a command, get the answer 15:19:36 * darkside is doing dirty magic (if( $field != '' ) insert it into query.... and so on) 15:19:44 with SQL ... I have to use a library on my local machine to manage the socket for me 15:19:52 MrReach: ohhh 15:20:00 MrReach: that would be cool, yes 15:20:12 much simpler to just open a socket in whatever language 15:20:23 then stuff the queries down it 15:20:42 MrReach: you're right, thats much better and faster and simpler 15:20:45 but each server talks a different protocol, so far as I can tell 15:20:48 and ..... lotsa and 15:21:03 MrReach: it could be an sql socket just for sql talks 15:21:34 ever try to install the driver in MSAccess to talk to a POSTGres DB manager? 15:22:01 MrReach: _NOOOO_ :P i hate access 15:22:14 (i like postgres however :P) 15:22:36 (at least more than mysql, for real databases) 15:22:42 well, so do I now, not because Access is a bad app, but because of the complexity of installing and maintaining libs 15:23:03 mysql is faster, postgres is more robust 15:23:28 MrReach: right 15:23:59 * darkside uses mysql just because of corporate nt server 15:24:16 why not Linux? 15:25:02 MrReach: thats not my decision... 15:28:05 * darkside distinguishes #assembler from #forth only by voices in #forth 15:28:37 actually, others have said that about Forth (the language) 15:28:55 lol 15:30:53 There are many differences, but I'm doing something right now and can't tell you about them. See www.ultratechnology.com for Forthnik Propaganda if you really want some =) 15:31:05 cleverdra: there are three pictures. the first picture is clearly a picture of an old crone. the second picture is clearly a picture of a beautiful young woman. if you show the first picture to somebody and then show them the third picture they see the old crone in that picture, but if you show the 2nd picture to somebody and then the third picture, they see the young woman. 15:31:21 the third picture is a meld of the first and second picture 15:31:31 so depending on your perspective, you see one or the other 15:31:40 futhin: did you find the picture on the net? 15:31:56 no, i've seen it in books 15:32:01 futhin: I've seen people fight to the death about "who was right" 15:32:15 when, in fact, they were both entirely correct 15:32:18 by the way, there is no absolute truth. if you know any philosophy, you'd know nothing is provable :P 15:32:48 hello ftuhin. That's interesting, but I don't think it quite relates to our discussion. 15:32:50 mrreach: well, it's dumb to only take one picture with you to parties. take the other two so that they both can see the old crone and the young woman 15:32:59 cleverdra: i was reading back up :P 15:33:02 * darkside leaves.. see ya in #assembler :P 15:33:05 no futhin, it's not provable, it *can't* be provable, because it and a proof of itself are contradictory 15:33:06 --- part: darkside left #forth 15:33:16 there's no absolute truths 15:33:33 futhin: I abbreviated the discription of the picture 15:33:52 here is an absolute truth: I am doing some serious usenetting right now, and don't feel up to reiterating an entire philosophical discussion. 15:34:11 I didn't feel up to typing the whole thing, when two people looking at it _could_ see two different women 15:34:15 You've stated that no observation can be trusted! Your eyes tell you one thing, but what you see could be totally different. Every sense is a liar. What is may be not or may be something else. 15:34:22 ugh 15:34:59 futhin - read the whole conversation, please. 15:35:08 he is, bit by bit 15:35:08 you were claiming that mrreach is delusional. that's nonsense, lots of people realize that there's no absolute truths (especially if you know a bit of philosophy) 15:35:31 well, LOTS of people think I'm delusional 15:35:48 but that doesn't make the point invalid @:^> 15:35:58 mrreach: bah, if that is true then you probably are a lousy conversationalist and a lousy arguer 15:36:00 I claimed that, by his own description, he was delusional. Please read the rest of the conversation. 15:36:36 but the delusional people have the BEST ideas! they're so different! 15:37:18 tell me that the guy that came up with Schrodinger's cat had all his bolts in tight! 15:38:41 Schrodinger was a great scientist. I have not seen his actual paper relating the theorem the popular anecdote is based on. What retellings I've seen of it vary in their insanity, but all are insane. Sorry, I *really* can't talk about that today. How about tomorrow? I'll tell you what I think of S.C. =) 15:39:29 cleverdra: sure don't worry about us ... we'll pick you apart and you can read it in the backscrolll @:^> 15:41:31 cleverdra: are you aware there's a mathematic proof that nothing is provable? 15:41:40 --- nick: rob_ert -> rob_ert_aw_ay_al_most 15:41:41 HAHAHAHA! 15:42:24 futhin - no, there isn't. The proof you describe is itseld described in GEB, and what it actually prooves is that you cannot prove the correctness of a system within that system. 15:42:52 cleverdra: erm ... the statment was an oxymoron 15:43:08 hm? where? 15:43:26 Well, yeah, it's contradictory, but I thought he was *serious* =) 15:43:27 a "proof that nothing is provable" 15:43:52 hmmm ... unless one were trying to prove "nothing" 15:44:06 i took philosophy class and there was a chapter on knowledge and about how we can't really know anything except "i think, therefore i am" 15:44:08 * MrReach scratches his chin, stumped, "Humph!" 15:44:32 futhin - that was one person's formulation, but I think it's pretty silly. There's more to philosophy than one class =) 15:44:38 err, one chapter. 15:44:40 futhin: did you ever read that essay in its entirety? (Guttenburg has it) 15:45:01 which essay? schrodinger? 15:45:25 * cleverdra points WAAAAAY back into the scroll where he declares that there is much nonsense (he used a different word at the time) in philosophy. 15:45:30 I thought it hysterical that he wrote, "I decided to avoid philosophy ... why should I think I would succeed when so many hundreds before me had failed?" 15:45:59 no, plato or socrates "I think therefor I am" 15:46:14 had a very different title, though 15:46:43 cleverdra: yes, philosophy is extremely ambiguous, which is annoying 15:47:05 profitable, though @:^> 15:47:40 futhin - not so much ambiguous as flooded with many different (and often contradictory) philosophies formed by people in past several millenia =) 15:47:50 no 15:48:21 it is definitely ambiguous because typically philosophers aren't interested in whether god exists or not 15:48:43 they are merely examining the meta of the whole thing 15:48:46 Some of them state it explicitly, and some of them, by the nature of their philosophy, state it implicitly. 15:49:48 when i talk of ambiguousness, i'm not talking about how they explain it (explicitly or implicitly), the analysis of philosophy itself is purely ambiguous, and probably has to be - since this is philosophy 15:50:16 Once upon a time the trendy thing was to say that philosophy was "the handmaiden of Faith", often explifying that God existed. More recent philosophers still have God, only they've reformulated him into A) themselves, or B) everyone 15:50:41 1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical 15:50:41 precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences 15:50:41 and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and 15:50:41 theology 15:51:11 futhin, if you go right out and say "the universe doesn't exist, it's all in your head, everything is in your head, nothing beyond what you imagine is real", that's pretty explicit. That's also been said. 15:51:29 according to mirriam-webster, philosophists are specifically forbidden from postulating about god 15:51:37 I forget what specific philosophers have said it. Others have gone exactly the opposite. 15:51:44 MrReach - m-w is wrong =) 15:52:02 cleverdra: it's also extremely dangerous to the culture to have many people believing that 15:52:12 I think the 1600s or something stand in refute. 15:52:21 MrReach - one person enough scares me! 15:52:57 This is why philosophy is important. If you don't state what you believe, what you believe will remain unstated =) 15:53:33 If you don't look at yourself, you'll have trouble seeing your flaws. 15:53:54 * cleverdra finishes getting 218 articles through blech google interface. 15:54:24 * MrReach gives give cleverdra a quarter and pulls his hand down to get another fortune. 15:54:48 IF YOU DO NOT TIE YOUR SHOES, YOUR SHOES WILL BE UNTIED. THIS CAN BE DANGEROUS, UNLESS YOU'RE NOT WEARING THEM. 15:54:58 haha! 15:55:00 (rate change: $0.50) 15:55:21 A MAN WITH HIS HAND IN HIS PANTS POCKET IS NOT NECESSARILY JINGLING HIS COINS 15:55:22 * MrReach falls out of his chair laughing. 15:55:29 hee 15:55:59 Confucious say, "Man standing on toilet is high on pot." 15:56:06 =) 15:56:15 I've got to go now. So long everyone! 15:56:20 --- quit: cleverdra (Leaving) 15:56:29 Confucious say, "Man walking through airport sideways is going to Bangkok" 15:59:43 gah 15:59:53 ?? 16:00:06 i was going to say to cleverdra: how do you _know_ there's an absolute truth? :) 16:00:25 incidently, I've never taken a philosophy class 16:01:35 you should, it rules 16:01:45 take philosophy 101 16:01:46 why? 16:02:00 it's cool, it goes over a lot of cool concepts 16:02:01 99.9% of the people can't handle what I think now 16:02:22 why should I voluteer for another half-meg of twisted thoughts? 16:02:55 you are just being arrogant :) 16:03:02 that essay was of mind 16:03:30 any concepts you have are 99.9% likely to have been thought up by somebody else 16:03:41 ok, get me drunk sometime and see what I talk about 16:03:53 oh, of course 16:04:02 I don't claim any original material 16:04:28 you are stealing the words out of my mouth :) get me drunk and see what i talk about! :P 16:04:32 Lifespring is what hammered the idea of perceptual differences into me 16:04:53 here's one of my concepts: everybody is stupid as fuck, even me :P 16:05:01 and it's true 16:05:04 humans are dumb 16:05:14 yep, but I don't like to belittle the whole human population 16:05:29 it's demoralizing to them 16:05:38 but we're smart enough to know that, except when we get all arrogant about how magnificent we are, and then make up bullshit like "god created us to rule the world!" 16:05:48 yeah, it's demoralizing, i don't say it outloud too much :) 16:05:52 to other 16:06:05 i don't care, i didn't develop a human-centric ego :P 16:06:12 s/other/others 16:06:28 I sometimes find myself saying, "Well! Wasn't *I* arrogant today!" 16:06:42 religion is completely based on catering to the ego/arrogance of people 16:07:24 either they are arrogant in their "humility" or they are arrogant that "god created them" or that their religion is the best or they are going to heaven and others to hell, etc 16:07:26 yes, that is why I call myself a spiritualist 16:07:37 and generally avoid religion altogether 16:07:49 bah.. spiritualist? what the hell is that :P 16:07:50 that way, I'm only quoting my own experience 16:07:57 i choose not to believe or assume ANYTHING :P 16:08:13 <-- neutralist 16:08:18 neutral 16:08:31 i like to be neutral 16:08:33 1 : the view that spirit is a prime element of 16:08:33 reality 16:08:33 2 a : a belief that spirits of the dead 16:08:33 communicate with the living usually through a 16:08:33 medium b capitalized : a movement 16:08:34 comprising religious organizations emphasizing 16:08:36 spiritualism 16:09:17 i.e. not sure Michelson-Morely was an accurate experiment 16:09:17 i just treat ghosts or other phenomena as energy or stuff that we haven't discovered yet. i greatly dislike the word "spirit" because too many people abuse it 16:09:32 agreed 16:09:34 i also dislike the word "soul" 16:09:45 it is however more generic that "god" or "soul" 16:09:51 heh 16:09:56 stealing words again 16:10:49 I'm in Spokane, WA, where are you? 16:11:01 i just go with mind and body and assume that when we die we die period. it is the simplest view, but i'm not inflexible about my views 16:11:13 ok 16:11:13 i'm in calgary, alberta, canada 16:11:19 that's right 16:11:49 i'm interested in ghosts, but i don't fully believe that, not until i see them 16:11:59 fair enuf 16:12:03 and i'm sure i'll visit all the places that are reported to have ghosts :) 16:12:07 that's the way I was 16:12:33 did you SEE a ghost? 16:12:44 yes 16:12:55 what did it look like 16:12:58 but that doesn't really help you, does it? 16:13:13 it was a possession 16:13:22 someone I once knew and had died 16:13:34 hm 16:13:39 possessed a friend ... proved to me who they were 16:14:00 stuff from my distant past noone in the present would know anything about 16:14:22 REALLY tied me up in knots for a while 16:14:38 heh, i can imagine :) 16:14:43 not bad stuff, just that it was proven beyond a doubt that something was up 16:15:53 my friend was fine ... the ghost was just making sure I didn't ignore certain parts of my exsistence as I had been 16:16:57 so now I find myself talking philosphy and spiritualism in #Forth 16:17:06 go figure 16:17:36 i don't think there's any such thing as insanity, it's all relative 16:18:14 and killing somebody isn't evil in a "truth" sense. it's only a bad thing because society says it is. 16:18:35 well, I've met several people that sure had something "wrong" with them 16:18:55 hard not to call them insane 16:19:04 bbiab 16:19:09 --- nick: MrReach -> MrNap 16:39:07 --- nick: rob_ert_aw_ay_al_most -> rob_ert 16:52:32 does anybody know Joy? 18:31:04 --- quit: rob_ert () 18:38:15 --- quit: futhin (bye) 19:05:08 --- nick: MrNap -> MrReacj 19:05:12 --- nick: MrReacj -> MrReach 19:55:40 --- quit: nate37 (Ping timeout for nate37[cx83983-d.irvn1.occa.home.com]) 19:56:01 --- join: nate37 (nate@cx83983-d.irvn1.occa.home.com) joined #forth 20:00:12 --- join: air (brand@c1715849-a.saltlk1.ut.home.com) joined #forth 20:11:50 --- join: futhin (thin@h24-67-113-99.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth 20:12:52 hello all 20:12:59 anybody know anything about Joy? 20:13:13 i'm reading it a little, but i don't get everything 20:13:34 too much lisp/smalltalk bullshit :P 20:13:52 * futhin needs to learn lisp and smalltalk bullshit 20:14:50 argh! programming languages SUCK! 20:15:19 reading a programming language page is like reading a philosophy page 20:25:37 hehh that's kinda what it is 20:25:59 philsophy in how to best interpret instructions that are in ppls little minds 20:26:05 i need somebody to translate joy to layman talk :( 20:26:45 bah 20:26:59 need somebody to compare joy to forth 20:27:50 functional language vs. well whatever forth is (imperative?) is quiet different... 20:28:11 joy is stack and rpn 20:28:17 ahh cool 20:28:24 forth is functional + concatenative 20:28:27 well 20:28:33 not functional, to my knowledge 20:28:40 some ppl call it functional and some ppl call it concatenative 20:28:41 i mean functional as in lisps 20:28:46 heh 20:28:46 yeah 20:28:56 why isn't forth functional? 20:29:10 it is kinda based on lisp after all 20:29:13 cause it... 20:29:14 how? 20:29:23 it kinda is and kinda isn't 20:29:24 i'm not sure really 20:29:45 --- join: cleverdra (jfondren@1Cust16.tnt3.florence.sc.da.uu.net) joined #forth 20:29:52 forth is kinda functional? is taht what you are saying? 20:29:58 hey cleverdra 20:30:00 i dunno 20:30:05 hello futhin. 20:30:16 cleverdra: is forth functional? :) 20:30:21 or imperative 20:30:23 if not, why not? 20:30:34 or in its own little catagory 20:30:37 i would say imperative 20:30:37 Forth transcends the definition of functional notations. 20:30:43 heh 20:30:52 nate: it's own little category is concatenative afaik 20:30:53 err, of the functional paradigm 20:31:13 cleverdra: have you heard of Joy? 20:31:35 joy is stackbased and rpn and all that, but it claims to be a purely functional language 20:31:38 futhin - yes, and I've heard of the concatenative paradigm. I dunno how well this applies to Forth. 20:32:00 futhin: url? 20:32:08 cool, we can say that forth only fits the forth paradigm, therefore forth is in the forth category ;) 20:32:09 cleverdra: what is concatenative paradigm? 20:32:17 nate: joy is at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/philosophy/phimvt/j00syn.html 20:32:53 joy looks ugly to me, but water (tunes guy) says he likes it better than forth 20:33:11 s/ugly/weird 20:33:19 --- mode: ChanServ set mode: +o cleverdra 20:33:22 --- mode: cleverdra set mode: +ooo air futhin nate37 20:33:38 water aye 20:33:50 I don't really like joy, but then I haven't examined it really closely. 20:34:04 same here 20:34:48 nate37 - that link of futhin's appears to be the canonical link for the paradigm, though there's also a mailing list. 20:34:50 i like forth.. for some things 20:35:05 altho ihavn't written an application for it.. just writing an interpretter 20:35:08 * cleverdra likes Forth for everything. 20:35:24 it doesn't particulary strike me as a language that is for "real" coding, rather, it seems more like the artsy fartsy lisp/smalltalk languages :P (i might be saying some bullshit stuff here, but please excuse me) 20:35:24 cleverdra: have a ti-85 calc? 20:35:27 or ti-86 20:35:32 o/~ my love for thee, Forth, is bounded only by the depth of the sky! o/~ 20:35:47 s/sky!/stack! :P~ 20:35:49 nate - I have an HP49G calculator, and a ti-82 I had for temporary use. 20:35:56 futhin! =) 20:36:04 i've got a hp48g calc, it rules! 20:36:36 Oh, yeah! I used to have an hp48g. My first programming experience, way before I started to think of myself as a programmer, happened on that thing. 20:36:38 i'm gonna hack it and give it more memory so that i don't feel so envious of those who have the 49g calcs 20:37:11 cleverdra: i am makign small little forth interpretter for ti-85... 20:37:14 i think you can give the hp48g calc 4 or 8 megs of ram.. 20:37:33 cleverdra: not sure what it will be good for :) but i figured i'll figure that out after i'm done :p 20:37:39 futhin - the major benefit there of the 49g is that it has a megabyte in Flash. The 48g I think is a bit better designed... before HP apparently decided to try for the upper TI market. 20:38:06 4 or 8 megs? That's... that's crazy. 20:38:14 nate - cool =) 20:38:21 cleverdra: yeah, i was talking to someone and he was complaining how 49g isn't as nice (for the engineer or those used to the rpn) 20:38:23 my ti calc has.. hm lessse 28kB 20:38:38 my hp48g has 32kb 20:38:43 futhin - huh? Not much difference RPN-wise that I saw. 20:38:49 well mine has 32 but 28 really usuable 20:38:57 system vars and stuff 20:39:01 cleverdra: yeah, he was looking at pictures, he hasn't actually used the 49 as far as i know 20:39:08 heh 20:39:22 mine has 2MB, 1MB in Flash and two 500KB ram ports. 20:39:31 futhin - oh, he may have seen the algebraic mode. 20:39:39 ram ports? i didn't know the hp49g has ram ports?? 20:39:42 futhin - algebraic is, again, for TI people I guess. 20:40:07 algebraic is for lame highschool students who aren't bold enough to discover the exciting frontier of RPN! 20:40:08 futhin - that's the internal name. Port 0, port 1, and port 2. They're not actually ports in the sense that you can connect external devices to them. 20:40:09 cleverdra : how much did urs cost? 20:40:17 ah 20:40:33 <-- had an hp48g calc where everyone else in the school had ti-83s! 20:40:36 nate - my father sent it to me... I saw one at a local store for $180. 20:40:43 ahh 20:40:47 coool... 20:40:59 i needa try out hp4* calcs some time 20:41:09 i got ti-85 a while ago.. 20:41:12 nate - you should've gotten the 48Gs when they weren't being made anymore =) I saw one, one time, it was amazing -- pricetag of $30! 20:41:22 nice 20:41:27 the hp49g is supposed to be nice though, two guys wrote a metakernel for the hp48 and then got hired by hp to implement it for the hp49! 20:41:58 i still see hp48g's around for sale at the university 20:42:20 huhn, cool. There's a usenet group for the HP48, which also handles hp49 and other such calculators. 20:42:31 nate: you should be able to find one if you look, go for the hp48g and then you can hack it and give it 8 megs of memory :) 20:42:45 heh i should 20:42:46 futhin - buy one =) buy two =) They'll still great calculators, and a great gift for any young relatives you have. 20:42:52 heh 20:42:59 yeah 20:43:00 futhin: how much do they sell for there 20:43:17 about 80 bucks canadian last i saw 20:43:21 or 90 20:43:24 between there 20:43:26 ah 20:44:05 there was a girl at my school who bought an hp48g calc, and then returned it for a ti-83 :-/ everybody at the school had a ti-83 so she switched 20:44:53 and one day my chem teacher was dissing the hp48g calcs because of the rpn, and i'm like "whut! rpn is cool! you can calculate stuff WAYYY faster!" 20:44:59 I don't think I can really respond to that, futhin. I'm going to install this software for my family. 20:45:54 nate: once you get an hp48, you'll trash all your other calcs. it's significantly faster and easier to do calculations 20:46:05 hey hey 20:46:23 i am --><-- to having rpn interprettable on cal 20:46:23 c 20:46:39 because you have a stack you don't need to worry about m+ or storing the value somewhere. it's on the stack, you can work on other stuff can comeback to the value that's still on stack :) 20:46:45 just a few more console i/o things to finish really 20:47:15 That's funny, futhin. I'm amazed that she's so tunnel-sighted that she can't see her own words mirroring those of her students, those who say, "but I don't want to learn chemistry! chemistry sucks! chemistry is /unnatural/ and it's /hard/". Chemistry is orders of magnitute more involved than an utterly simple notation like RPN. 20:47:29 after i get core done it wouldn't be too hard to implement wrappers to its internal math functions 20:47:38 so i could have it rpn :) 20:47:50 nate - cool. There's actually already an RPN package for one of the TIs, but RPN is a facet of, not the same thing as, a real Forth. 20:48:34 yes i know 20:48:47 but forth is fairly easy way to implement it soo 20:48:51 cleverdra: there's RPL (reverse polish lisp) for the hp48g.. what is with that? is it lisp? 20:48:55 i like forth 20:49:07 cleverdra: chances are tho if there is one its for another calc 20:49:10 like 89 20:49:13 which has 128KB 20:49:17 of mem 20:49:26 ppl are flocking to that and dumping 85 :( 20:49:32 RPN is the simplest mathematical notation in the world. You can express things just as easily in it (and especially easy in ASCII-type screens), without ambiguity or complex rules of operation sequence. You can translate any algebraic expression directly to RPN -- and most software dealing with algebraic expressions do just that. 20:49:38 nate - yeah. 20:49:40 or also 86.. which has like around 90kB 20:49:58 right 20:50:00 futhin - I dunno. Sounds like lisp with the operator as the last element. 20:50:08 no order of precedence of operators 20:51:29 afk for a bit 20:51:44 The *only* argument ever made against RPN, that can be made against it, is that it is unnatural. "Unnatural" to the people who say this means "unfamiliar", like anything not yet learned and newly encountered is unfamiliar. If we learned RPN instead of infix, and didn't learn infix, we'd find *that* unfamiliar when newly-encountered, and neens would call it "unnatural" too. 20:55:20 i find RPN very natural 20:55:40 i was working away happily with my hp calc in a day ( seriously, only a day ) 20:56:03 back 20:56:28 it was a little weird with forth because of words 20:57:14 i'm still a _little_ unused to RPN with words 20:57:34 gotta go now. bye 20:57:37 --- quit: cleverdra (Leaving) 20:57:37 bye 21:00:10 --- quit: nate37 (Ping timeout for nate37[cx83983-d.irvn1.occa.home.com]) 21:12:45 --- quit: futhin (gotta go) 21:20:12 --- join: nate37 (nate@cx83983-d.irvn1.occa.home.com) joined #forth 21:26:14 --- join: edrx (edrx@200.240.18.52) joined #forth 21:28:42 --- quit: edrx ([x]chat) 21:57:39 hmmmmm 22:00:59 * MrReach is back 22:08:27 has anyone here actually written a recursive descent parser? (used in implementing algebrain notation) 22:08:55 I wrote one once, as an excercise, in C64 basic ... I hope I never have to write another 22:09:36 heh 22:09:38 I440r: you around? 22:11:14 --- join: nibble (dagger@host213-122-127-222.btinternet.com) joined #forth 23:02:52 --- quit: nibble (Ping timeout for nibble[host213-122-127-222.btinternet.com]) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/01.06.27