It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hans: oh great wonder of the age, I accept that the real Indian civilization had wisdom – that good enough for ya? LOL, however that wisdom was appropriate for their level of development. Ideas were created that were later used in the theory of computer science, they didn't have computer science.
In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.
But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.
The enterprise of computer science has two fundamental elements. The element is to develop techniques that make the elucidation of the computational structure of nature and the mind easier. The second element is the creation of new computing algorithms and machines that have powerful cognitive and computational abilities: this includes development of new techniques of representing and manipulating knowledge, inference and deduction. The tasks of representing and processing knowledge with a somewhat different emphasis has parallels in many ancient disciplines. Thus grammarians have long considered questions of relating facts about the physical world and
cognition to linguistic expressions. Likewise logicians have developed formal structures to relate events and draw inferences from them. This is seen best in the work of ancient Indian logicians and grammarians. It has been argued by Ingalls, Staal, Matilal, Briggs, Kak and others1 that many contemporary developments in formal logic, linguistics, and computer science are a rediscovery of the work of these ancient masters. But apart from the question of a correct history of ideas it raises the following important question of significance to Sanskritists as well as cognitive and computer scientists: Are there other rules in ancient Indian logic and grammar that may be of use in making further advance in cognitive and computer sciences?
Pāṇini's use of metarules, transformations, and recursion together make his grammar as rigorous as a modern Turing machine.[The Backus-Naur form (Panini-Backus form) or BNF grammars used to describe modern programming languages have significant similarities to Pāṇini grammar rules. Pāṇini's grammar can be considered to be the world's first formal system, well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. To design his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols," in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique was rediscovered by the logician Emil Post and is now a standard method in the design of computer programming languages.
A treatise called Astadhyayi (or Astaka ) is Panini's major work. It consists of eight chapters, each subdivided into quarter chapters. In this work Panini distinguishes between the language of sacred texts and the usual language of communication. Panini gives formal production rules and definitions to describe Sanskrit grammar. Starting with about 1700 basic elements like nouns, verbs, vowels, consonants he put them into classes. The construction of sentences, compound nouns etc. is explained as ordered rules operating on underlying structures in a manner similar to modern theory. In many ways Panini's constructions are similar to the way that a mathematical function is defined today.
Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by qbik2008
Hehe, howdy qbik
its the old Sitchin dodge of saying you can really read the documents not like the old fuddy duddy scholars.
Originally posted by qbik2008
reply to post by Indigo_Child
From what I have gleaned from my own understanding...is that Sitchin is "Close"...and his arguements may very well be valid...but from a limited "Thought Form...
I do not propose that I have all of the "Keys" to Enlightenment...as they are vast and never ending...and they are "Dynamic" in "Nature"....but...this begins to make one wonder about their very existence in "Nature"..it is a never ending question...
By the way what do you think of the evidence I presented above on Panini. Is it convincing, are there parts that need to explained more. I just wanted an opinion of somebody else that was not a pseudoskeptic. This thread has become quite lonely today
Regarding 'pottery' well there is pottery around today too, so that does not mean we are not advanced. However, I understand your criticism, I myself do not beleive the IVC was a post-21st century technology, because if it was something would have remained from it. As it was not flooded, there should be advanced materials, parts of machines etc. The reason it cannot be found is because the Aryan civilisation is pre-glacial. There was a post-21st century civilisation but more than 10,000 years ago. It was destroyed by superfloods.
Was this particular Civilization in the same timeframe as "Atlantis"...just a thought that crossed my mind...I have not checked into this...eventually I will get to it I suppose...unfortunately I am feeling more and more everyday that our time here on this particular Earth is drawing near to some type of Ending and Rebirth...I feel time is of the essence and that we must use it wisely...
I think you should speak with a bit of respect Hans.
You are not talking to a regular joe, I am highly educated and have studied Logic and Philosophy formally. I kind of know what I am talking about
You claimed that Panini was normal for his time. That’s interestingly, considering computer scientists and linguists consider him to be a genius and not at all normal for his time.
You claimed that only some concepts of Panini are used in computer science. That’s curious they are using the concepts of somebody in 700-500BCE (Conservative dates) in modern computer science?
Noam Chomsky has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar. In Optimality Theory, the hypothesis about the relation between specific and general constraints is known as "Panini's Theorem on Constraint Ranking". Pāṇinian grammars have also been devised for non-Sanskrit languages. His work was the forerunner to modern formal language theory (mathematical linguistics) and formal grammar, and a precursor to computing.