Jump to content

Talk:Artificial consciousness and Talk:Hangul/Archive 1: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
making the argument plain
 
not happy with this; let's fill the content first; there *is* an official romanization; redirects; don't we want to be up-to-date?
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{msg:korean}}
A totally and completely false assumption:

There is no accepted definition or understanding regarding real consciousness yet there is a field of artificial consciousness? How absurd!

http://www.enticy.org

In ai-forum was a passionate debate about the same question just not to repeat it here, but result was rather that it must be clearly stated that all abilities of consciousness mentioned must be known and observable. AC is not consciousness.

http://www.ai-forum.org

----
----
== Jamo order ==
Jamo order needs update. One listed in the article is actually South Korean order. Here's North Korean order:


ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉㅇ
To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build. If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then '''by definition''' it would not be conscious. The Philosophical Criticisms section of [[artificial intelligence]] applies directly to this topic too.


First ㅇ, if it represents sound /ng/. Second ㅇ, is zero. Note that ㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉ is placed *after* all other jamos, not just after their simple counterpart.
What is the special thing about humans that allows them consciousness? Humans are either machines (in which case the [[Church-Turing thesis]] applies) or they are not (in which case there is some magic spark). You (whoever wrote what I am commenting on) has now to decide: What is it? For you view to be consistent either you require a new computer science possibly requiring new physics, or you have a [[soul]]. Speak up now. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 01:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


For vowels:
----


ㅏㅑㅓㅕㅗㅛㅜㅠㅡㅣㅐㅒㅔㅖㅚㅟㅢㅘㅝㅙㅞ
Yes this comment was written by me and I meant that artificial consciousness and consciousness are different terms, what doesn't mean that artificial consciousness necessarily must not be the same as consciousness, or that it must be the same as consciousness, just because of the subjective nature of consciousness as a whole we can never decide whether artificial consciousness shall be the same as consciousness or not. tkorrovi


Again, ㅐ and ㅔ is placed after all basic vowels, not after ㅏ and ㅓ.
----


And the comment that Choi Sejin established the current order, is although correct, but misleading. What he decided is *basic jamo order*. Nothing about five glottalized consonants, or combined vowels. So South and Korea differ in these matters, but same in basics. -- 143.248.205.98
A question you leave open is this: How similar is my consciousness to yours? Were I to build a machine which has the same characteristics as my brain - artificial neurons with the same latencies, triggering thresholds etc - and I was to scan my brain, take a backup, and load it into the machine, might not that machine be artificially conscious yet more similar to ''my'' consciousness than it would be to ''your'' consciousness? [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 13:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The machine's AC would be more like my C than your C is to my C. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 13:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
: A varied order is interesting. Thank you for the info. They have been added. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 10:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


----
----
== Lattices ==

''Some claims that King Sejong visualized the written characters after studying the intricate lattice work one sees on the sliding doors found in classic Korean homes. But the others say that it is a rumor spread under the Japanese rule, in order to condemn the language of a colony.''
I think that the question of what is different in consciousness of different people always remains open, also what is in brain depends a lot on everything outside, and changes a lot, but then we may also look at the differencies between human consciousness and systems what can never become conscious, like your text editor. tkorrovi
:It's not obvious to me how this theory/story/rumor could be considered "condemning". Could you explain further?

::Ok, perhaps I picked wrong word. (I am not a native speaker of English) But Hangul is a deep philosophical and phonological system, not just the imitation of lattice. Ok, I would revise the article, wait a minute.
AC forum http://tkorrovi.proboards16.com/
:::Okay, I see what you're getting at. But some environmental stimulus (for instance, intricite latticework) can still serve as ''inspiration'' leading to someone with a sharp mind developing a deep philosophical and phonological system, which is how I interpreted the claim. Nothing derogatory that I can see.

::::''Inspiration'', possible. By the way there is no evidence for that. And a preceeding paragraph states how letters were designed, which is supported by evidences.
:::::Sure... but it doesn't sound any nastier than the "so-and-so invented X after noticing Y in Z, and realizing that he could use the W method to make X work perfectly" statements to be found in glowingly praiseful biographies of inventors. So, while it may be a rumor, legend, or what have you (insofar as it's unsupported by any evidence), it's not in the least bit negative in any way I've yet been able to figure out. Why the need to be defensive about it?
----
----
Oops, "jal motaiyo". I was a bit hasty with the patterns thing. Correction coming in 5 minutes. Bear with me. Cham-kan ki-da-ri-se-yo.

The questions are difficult, but I do not think they will "always remain open". If I understand you then you are saying that the difference between AC and C is simply terminolgical. I.e. Artifical Consciousness ''is'' Consciousness ''' in all but name'''. But you started off with a remark that concludes that they are not the same: "AC is not consciousness."

What is it? Where do you stand?

[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 06:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


----
----
== Alphabet image ==
Removed from article:


<table align="center">
Paul, please discuss before you remove something. This definition was a collective effort, discussed before in different forums. In the definition similar to "the ability to predict the external events etc" was proposed for intelligence (this form was written by me, Rob Hoogers proposed "the ability to predict how the external processes will develop"). But then it was considered to overdefine intelligence, the ability to predict demands imagination, creativity etc, what even may require feelings etc, so don't entirely go under intelligence. Then it was replaced by more narrow definition, what most likely didn't define intelligence entirely though. Because of that this was added as one ability of consciousness. What exactly makes it strong is the requirement to be able to do it in any possible environment when possible, this very demanding and so indeed makes AC a *strong* AI. This also corresponds to my program in terms of theory. The first part was also discussed in ai-forum and decided to include it exactly as it was, except of later change by "195.218.198.164" of removing "theoretically" what I agree with because the rest says the same. Your proposed definition "An artificial consciousness (AC) is a man-made or otherwise constructed system which is conscious" simply is not proper because it doesn't define anything at all, as "conscious" isn't defined and *cannot* be defined because consciousness is subjective term. Please understand one thing -- subjective term cannot be defined. BTW sorry, I restored the definition. At least please discuss before you are going to remove anything. So if you have any questions concerning the definition etc, please ask and we will discuss it either here or in AC forum or in place you like.
<tr><td>[[Image:Hangul.png]]
</table>


The Korean letters for "Hangul" in above table are not correct.
AC and C are different terms, but the difference is not only terminological, AC is artificially created, while C is natural, and AC is objective while C is subjective. Concerning what you said about Igor Aleksander I may agree, if you indeed have evidence that AC was used before Igor Aleksander did it. Concerning that my evidence is unfortunately confined to Internet. tkorrovi
The incorrect letters are pronounced as /hang-ul/.
But the "Hangul" is pronounced like /han-gl/ and the correct letters are &#54620;&#44544;.


:That, and the table's labelled in French. :) Actually, there's already a version with the spelling corrected (I've just switched it above), but I'm still going to make a French-free version. (Or... no, I think it's still wrong. Just differently so.) --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]
----


:: Maybe (but I don't know) the version should also be made to fit English pronounciation rules (or global ones), since this one may be using the French ones. [[User:Jheijmans|Jeronimo]]
The external source for your definition is ''your'' artificial consciousness forum which you dominate. That it represents a broad consensus I doubt. I had difficulty even parsing it. That an ability to tell the future is necessary for consciousness seems risble to me. The claim that AC is AI is also rubbish.


::: Hmm, that table seems to be a mish-mash of different transcription systems (or just one I haven't encountered -- not unlikely, as I'm not very familiar with Korean). Unless someone has a better idea, I'd suggest using the current [http://www.korea.net/contents/additional/romanization/4.html South Korean official romanization]. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]]
I would have thought that you would have read the literature widely before claiming that the term ''artificial consciousness'' was first used in 1996. If you had you would know that claim is not true, you would also know that the term has been better defined by reputed computer scientists and philosophers than the definition you use. I refer you to the popular works of Daniel C Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose, for starters, which you have read, I presume.
-----


Forgot to include the move in the summary. But I rephrased and moved the following to [[Korean language]]:
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 14:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


: As an aside, hangeul characters are not completely phonetic in themselves. For example, JongLo is pronounced as JongNo and HanKukMal as HangGungMal. The rules for word pronunciation are quite regular, though.
----


These are examples of "irregularities" governed by phonetic rules, which existed before Hangul. The Hangul spelling is always regular, regardless of pronunciation. (Although the consistency is amazingly high.) So anyway, that's why it's moved to the Language article, because it's an aspect of the language.
Please discuss, would we please try to act reasonably. Defining artificial consciousness through consciousness is not circular because these are different terms and artificial consciousness is subset of consciousness what becomes as close to consciousness as much we objectively know about consciousness. Also though consciousness as a whole cannot be defined, things can be defined through it, ie through abilities of what what are known and objective and so can be determined. tkorrovi


----
----
== Myth ==
Hey, 66.156.33.26, don't you know some Koreans claim that the so-called Garimto script was the forerunner of Hangul. --[[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]] 02:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


: Garimto is still mysterious and it's not well-accepted. Who knows? Possibly, Garimto could be another "Jinda-moji." Nobody knows its origins. And please, stop watering down the explanation of Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26
I *am* discussing it. But I can '''not''' allow a nonsense (i.e. does not make sense) definition to survive.


:: Anybody is free to create detailed articles on [[Jinda-moji]] or [[Garimto]], then improve them. I would, except I know nothing about them. Please bring minute details there, not on the general introduction to Hangul. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 23:06, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
Despite verbiage you are not discussing the issues. You make questionable assertions as fact without being prepared to back them up. Who says you cannot define something which is subjective? Who? You. Who says that consciousness is subjective? You. Who is it who insists on defining artificial consciousness? You. CONTRADICTION.


::: People have different opinions on whether or not the two "mystery languages" are real or bogus fakes. Wouldn't that "clash"---lack of better words. Also, there is not much information on Garimto, but there seems to be some info on Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26
You say AC is not C because one is subjective the other not. Rubbish. Your C should be objectively discernible to me. As should the AC of a machine.


:::: Write how ever much on either one or both article as you could research. Other Wikipedians will follow with more info if they could. Just be careful not to be pursuasive (i.e., subtly trying to make our encyclopedia article agree with theory A or B). --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 23:37, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
I carefully constructed an argument which shows that AC and C are the same. This you have ignored.


I moved the thing to [[Tondemo]]. This would be the right place. Yes, it is entertainment except for few believers. --[[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]] 01:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You are not discussing the issues. I have been but you ignore what I have said.
Instead we get meaningless nonsense like your latest para above.


-----
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 14:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have added tables giving the names of the jamo, corrected the number of jamo (51, not 52), elaborated upon the makeup of that number (simple vs. combined; vowels vs. consonants), and added some other material (Korean words for "consonant" and "vowel," for example).


--[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] ~16:00, 26 Sept 2003 (UTC)
----


-----
> The external source for your definition is your artificial consciousness forum which you dominate. That it represents a broad consensus I doubt. I had difficulty even parsing it. That an ability to tell the future is necessary for consciousness seems risble to me. The claim that AC is AI is also rubbish.
Hey, [[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]]! There's no reference to [[Garimto]] on your [[Tondemo]] page, leading to the implication that by clicking on the [[Tondemo]] link at the bottom of the [[Hangul]] page that you think [[Hangul]] or its history is "outrageous nonsense." I'm sure that's not your intention; could you please fix this?

[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 18:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Where I said that, or where you find that? I created a forum to discuss AC, I thought there is a lot to discuss and this is a good thing, and I *don't* dominate it, I did never delete not a single post from that forum and likely never do, my only policy there is only to delete post what are obviously offensive, no such so far, I hope you don't call it "domination". Otherwise I said there my opinion what everybody has a right to do. Some places where the definition was discussed were the ai-forum, the Hawking forum and the astronomy.net forum.

When you read the dictionaries, then you see that almost always there are several explanations for consciousness, to be self-aware is only one of these, other is "totality of thoughts and feelings" (Oxford dictionary) etc. The ability to predict was said to be one ability of consciousness, if you think that consciousness doesn't include that, then this is also widely disputed. (I don't know the word "risble" to be any English word, honestly, are you making jokes on me?) OK then, if you argue defining through selw-aware to be correct, then only reasonable option is to have a compromise, and include both possibilities.

I think the question whether AC is AI or a separate field is open. Some AI people want AC to be part of AI, others maybe not, this again depends on how we determine AI.

> If you had you would know that claim is not true, you would also know that the term has been better defined by reputed computer scientists and philosophers than the definition you use. I refer you to the popular works of Daniel C Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter and Roger Penrose, for starters, which you have read, I presume.

OK then why you don't include the facts you know.

tkorrovi


----
----


== Coding ==
I will go with "totality of thoughts and feelings" but not with predicting the future.

I have found a posting on your AC forum where you (July of an unspecified year) state flatly that AC and AI are not the same. Here you hold the other view. Which is it? For the record I did not state ''in the article'' that I thought them different (it happens that I do) but that most consider AI a prerequisite for AC. That most do so is a fact.

You ask me to post what I know. This I did. You reverted it. A google search for '"artificial consciousness" conference' finds one in 1995. There are earlier mentions of AC on the web.


[[User:Sewing|Sewing]], I'm curious about what you are doing with this conversion of Hangul. Why are you doing it and where can we get more information on these two different coding systems?
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 15:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Rschmertz|Rschmertz]] 23:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


:[[Unicode]] has two different sets of Hangeul Jamo: "Hangeul Jamo" (starting with hex 1100/decimal 4352) and "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo" (starting with hex 3130/decimal 12592). (There is apparently yet a third set, also called "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo," starting at hex FFA0/decimal 65440; these are half-width, as opposed to the full-width forms of the 3130 block.) I switched simply because while I could view the 1100-block characters in Opera, I could not see them in Internet Explorer; whereas after the switch to the 3130 block, I could view the jamo in both browsers with no problem. The explanation for the difference comes from Section 10.4 (p. 275) of the Online Edition of the ''Unicode Standard, Version 3.0'', which says that the 1100 block can be used for composing syllable blocks, and is ordered in such a way as to enable sorting, with initial consonants coming first, then all the medial vowels, then the final consonants. The 3100 and FFA0 blocks, on the other hand, are not designed for syllable composition or sorting--the initial and final consonants are merged into a single sequence, followed by all the vowels. The 3100 block exists "solely for compatibility with the KS C 5601 standard," which apparently Microsoft follows.... Well, I hope that answers your question: sorry if my reply tends on the long side, but better more info than less, right? --Yours, [[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 14:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
----
----


> You ask me to post what I know. This I did. You reverted it.


==Move page back to [[Hangul]]==
I didn't revert of what you changed concerning Igor Aleksander, only repaired a semantical error.


I'm not sure, if I'm doing right. According to the new romanization, the title must be '''Hangeul'''. I made a [[Hangeul]] page, and make it redirect this page. But I think it's better to change the title of this page to Hangeul and leave a note that the romanization Hangul is out-dated. --[[User:Xaos|Xaos]], early 2003
> external link to crank article removed


This page should be moved back to [[Hangul]]. That is the most common name used in English. [http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Hangul&q2=Hangeul&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us] [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 02:43, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
This wis offensive, you didn't substantiate it anyhow. I hope you understand that even only because of that our further conversation may not make sense. Maybe you just should take a rest awhile and think about it.


:I have replied to your completely unhelpful request on your [[User talk:Nohat|Talk]] page. --[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 05:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
tkorrovi


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Seeing as how this is the ''English'' Wikipedia, we have an obligation to follow the primary naming convention of [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)]]. We have no obligation to follow the "official" romanizations of Korean according to anyone. English spelling is beholden to no foreign standardizing organization, regardless of the origin of the word. "Hangul" has entries in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the OED, and the American Heritage Dictionary, while "Hangeul" is in none of them. "Hangul" is the the predominant spelling in English, and it is the spelling that should be used in Wikipedia. Furthermore, [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)]] even says "Exceptions to this are English words borrowed from Korean, whose irregular spellings have crystallized in English." [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 15:04, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
----


: Why don't you go hassle people about the spelling of [[Peking]] and [[Mao Tse-tung]] and come back here when you're finished with that? -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 15:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


::Well, because "Beijing" is more common than "Peking" [http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Peking&q2=Beijing&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us] and "Mao Zedong" is more common than "Mao Tse-tung" [http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Mao+Tse-tung&q2=Mao+Zedong&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us]. Nevertheless, "Hangul" is more common than "Hangeul" [http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Hangul&q2=Hangeul&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us]. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 15:21, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
I am going to delete the external link again because it is a link to a crank article. The article professes to discuss a program which exists which is conscious. As such a program would be the biggest news in computer science in a decade one of these things are true. Either the article is being ignored by the computer science establishment or the article is a hoax, or the article is by a crank. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 15:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


:::And how do you think it got that way? All your arguments about "Hangul" would have applied equally well to "Peking" thirty years ago. "Beijing" is more common now ''only'' because official sources such as newpapers, magazines, dictionaries, and encyclopedias acceded to the desire of the Chinese government to change the official spelling. The request of the South Korean government to change the spelling of "Hangul" is no different. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 15:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Haha! The linked article is by tkorrovi! All becomes clear. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 15:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


:::That's because the official [[Pinyin]] spelling has had time to filter its way into English. I wrote the rule this morning on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)]] that you're referring to, in response to you. I added the caveat that the exception should only apply to words used frequently in a non-Korean context. Anyhow, [[Hangul]] currently redirects to [[Hangeul]], and the spelling "Hangul" is acknowledged&mdash;in '''bold,''' no less&mdash;in the first sentence. --[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 15:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----


::::Yes, and "Hangeul" has not "filtered its way into English". "Hangul" is the English name of the Korean writing system. "Hangul" is the ''English'' word, as listed in ''English'' dictionaries, and is the way it should be spelled in the ''English'' Wikipedia. If "Hangeul" ever becomes the more common spelling ''in English'', then we can change the page's name. Until then, the page should be at "Hangul" and it should be spelled "Hangul". This is ''exactly'' like "Kimchi" and "Taekwondo"---and we should use English spellings. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 15:36, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
First, it is nowhere argued that it is consciousness, but it is *proposed* mechanism for artificial consciousness, proposed means that it is not accepted, but also not rejected. If you like, add a comment that it is disputed or what you consider proper, but this link is important for the theory of AC, as only in the beginning now, you can remove it only if you prove that it is of no importanse for AC or completely wrong. If you like and know, add other links. tkorrovi


::::And 30 years ago I would have expected to find an article under "Peking" as almost no one in the English speaking world would hae known what "Beijing" was. However, that has changed, and most people know about "Beijing". It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be normative: we have no obligation to accede to the requests of the South Koreans until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes well-established in English, ''which it has not''. Furthermore, until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes more common than "Hangul", the analogy argument with "Beijing" and "Mao Zedong" is moot. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 16:02, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
----


:::For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that article titles should be in the most common form in English usage, with variant spellings described in the article overview. We should be descriptive and not prescriptive, and therefore official government spellings shouldn't have any undue influence upon article titles at all (though they should, of course, be mentioned. Once words switch spelling in common English usage, then the article should be moved then, but not before. The government's official name is a part of the process of the spelling change, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor for our purposes. ---[[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 16:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, in my defence, it is difficult to work out exactly what the article is about. But Wikipedia is not for self-promotion in any event. I have deleted the link again. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 15:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


::::Accepted. I'll leave the article the way [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] last edited it, leaving '''Hangul''' as the lead entry word with an appropriately parenthetized mention of '''Hangeul.''' As for Nohat's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," you could have persuaded me without resorting to insults. --[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 17:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And it seems the onus of proof is not on me but on you. Just say in which esteemed journal your article has been published then perhaps we can have a link . [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 15:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


:::::I'm sorry you were insulted. [[User:Brion|Brion]] used the same Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation on [[Talk:Devanagari]], and I thought it was appropriate here as well. I didn't intend to imply that you had a small mind; I just wanted to illustrate that even the great masters admit that consistency isn't always the greatest goal to strive for. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 18:09, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
----


::::::Apology accepted, and I agree. Despite the strong imprint of Confucian conformity, part of the beauty of Korean culture is its individualism: witness the myriad spellings of Korean personal names. Like French with its ''[[Académie française]],'' (South) Korean spelling and pronunciation rules are set by a central body. Despite this, the romanization of personal names is so idiosyncratic that the government's own rules say that a person's name should just be spelled according to his or her own preference, rules be damned! --[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 18:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just give your source for your defining consciousness as predicting the future. Who says so? [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 16:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


This is mad. Google is ''not'' our god. Korean has a given (controlled, read ''official'') spelling. I think it is ''crucial'' we follow the official spelling: let's undo these changes. [[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 23:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----


::Here a quote from [[Google test]]: ''It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic.'' --[[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please substantiate that predicting the future is not and is not considered by anybody to be an ability of consciousness (included in consciousness). tkorrovi


:::There's no such thing as an official spelling in the English language. Users of English are beholden to no foreign government to dictate how they should spell words in English. "Hangeul" may be the proper way to romanize the Korean word &#54620;&#44544; but "Hangul" is the ''English'' name for the Korean writing system. In dictionaries. It's spelled "Hangul". That usage is more prevalent on the web. If you think this page should be on [[Hangeul]] then you should also move [[Kimchi]] to [[Gimchi]] and [[Taekwondo]] to [[Taegwondo]]. Why is it "crucial" that we follow the official spelling?
No, I cannot demonstrate that what you say does not appear in '''all''' learned books and papers. You simply have to show one '''authoritative''' use and I will back down as graciously as I can.


:::I wish you had read the discussion above before moving the page again. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 16:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


::::Well, you have now insulted ''both'' of the two most active contributors on Korea-related topics. I have referred the Hangeul-vs.-Hangul question to [[User:Menchi|Menchi]], who has some interest in Korea-related matters but as far as I know would have a more detached position on this issue than the other participants. --[[User:Sewing|Sewing]] 01:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----


I am going to remove the "all" from the following sentence:
: "Detached I am from the dusty world...," ''enters the monk'':


: Nohat claims that ''Hangul'' is "the ''English'' word, as listed in ''English'' dictionaries". It seems so, as the [[OED]]'s entry is ''Hangul''. But OED's earliest quote is only about 50 years ago. Which, as Nohat admits, means the word hasn't "filtered through". Not only that, this 1951 quote by C. Osgood in ''Koreans & their Culture'' xvi. 323 is not really ''Hangul'', but the McCune-Reischauer ''Hang&#365;l''. Ironically, it was Shannon McCune (younger bro of McCune) who ignored the breve in his 1966 ''Korea: Land of Broken Calm'' (but then he also totally mistranslated ''[[Joseon]]'' in the book title....)
:''An '''artificial consciousness''' (AC) system is a man-made or otherwise constructed artifact capable of achieving all known objectively observable abilities of consciousness i.e. a totality of thoughts and feelings or self-awareness.''


: My conclusion is that having like 50 years of ocassional "unfiltered-through" use does not seem long. Worse, a linguistic technical term like ''Hangul'' will probably NEVER be filtered through as action-y words like ''[[Kung fu]]'' or tasty words like ''[[tofu]]'' did. The confusion of this matter is that ''Hangul'', IF an English word, seems to be in a half-living half-dead state. So, does it still count as a legitimate English word? Or should be follow the consistency of the very official 2000 SK Romanization?
Imagine that we had a device which we were testing to see if it was (artificially) conscious. Imagine it passes all of our varied test except one. Is it conscious? I think it might be. E.g. If one of our tests was to recognise oneself in a mirror (a reasonable test, I suggest) and that test were failed but all the other tests ot passed (e.g. that it could recognise when a joke was funny, it demonstrated sympathy when someone was hurt, it said it felt guilty when speeding) then I would say, OK, conscious. So the "all" is not a '''necessary''' condition.


: My feeling is that, until SK 2000 ages a bit and is recognized internationally like [[Hanyu Pinyin]], we can stick with "Hangul". Shall the United Nations proclaim its adoption of SK 2000 as it did with Hanyu Pinyin in the 70s, we can switch to ''Hangeul''. But the Korean government has been really gung ho about the new romanization and actually enforced on its citizens all these years. So I think its international standardization is a definite possibility.
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 16:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


: However, regarding to other article titles, unless OED has the word, I definitely support SK 2000 (breve absolutely does not appear in WP titles). ---[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----


Nohat, just wanted to let you know that, afaik, both Sewing and I are tired of persistent edits without consultation of the ''community''. I did never argue that there was an ''official'' spelling in English, but pointed out that there is one in ''Korean''. On the other hand, your edit summary reads ''Use *correct* spelling of English word Hangul'' (my highlighting). As for 'being able to easily change to ''Hangeul'' when it is more common'... who is going to change the spellings in the texts (not just the links)? Finally, is it ''odd'' that a dictionary from 1989 doesn't have a spelling introduced 4 years ago? [[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]]
Paul Beardsell, you don't understand and start to change something what you don't understand. Read the definition, it says intentionally "capable of achieving", ie it doesn't *have* all these abilities, it must be *capable* of achieving them, so failing one test still doesn't mean that it doesn't satisfy the criteria. tkorrovi


No. If it is not capable of recognising itself in a mirror and it is not capable of achieving that in the future it could still be conscious. [[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 16:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that I ''did'' read the discussion before either moving or commenting on this. I don't think allegations (23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) are a good way to handle this. [[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 12:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


:I'm not quite done yet. First of all, I wish to publicly state my disappointment that one person (in this case ''Nohat'') comes and unilaterally changes the ''naming conventions'' and then all the links and then ''keeps'' reverting. If at least he changed ''all'' occurrences of ''Hangeul'' into ''Hangul''. I'm too tired to insist on my preference, but I will spell it out. IMHO it's ridiculous to spend so much energy on arguing about a mere ''e'' in a word that is transcribed anyway. We can do this once we've written all the articles, filled Wikipedia with content.
----

Time and time again I make a point here, I advance an argument supporting my edits, I point out contradictions in tkorrovi's posts. Much of this is ignored by him and he insists on including a link to his own article which, being kind, is not hard science. He will not substabtiate his points. He insists on reverting to versions which are flawed and which he will not support by cogent argument.

I have been typically combative but fair, I think. This article, as it stands, is not worthy of an encyclopedia. External review requested.

[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 16:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

> No. If it is not capable of recognising itself in a mirror and it is not capable of achieving that in the future it could still be conscious.

This is your opinion Paul. Nobody forbids you to say your point of view or write it in Wikipedia articles, but then you should not delete a point of view of the others. I accept adding opinions of everybody as I always did, the more people do it the better. In fact I didn't remove anything what you wanted to add, but concerning "all" it's more difficult, you should then add your version of the definition there, what you could do from the beginning instead of all this dispute. tkorrovi

----

I have provided an argument as to why "all" is wrong. You act as if the argument has no force. Instead you say that is my opinion. No. The argument is logically compelling. Refrain from your ''ad hominem'' attacks: Attack the argument. What is wrong with it?

Have you abandoned your "predicting the future" definition of consciousness? Where is the but '''one''' authoritative source? Can't you find one? In which case it is just your opinion and it must go. Or you must construct an argument as to why your opinion is correct.

Also Wikipedia is not supposed be a place where all opinions are aired. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you cannot argue your points then give way.

There are Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia itself that makes this plain. Also, self-promotion is not allowed. That is why the link has to go.

[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 17:11, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your argument may be logically compelling if you consider consciousness as self-awareness. Does self-awareness include recognizing yourself in the mirror or not? But self-awareness is not the only explanation of consciousness, this is a view of some, and most likely your view, but not a proved definition of consciousness. In this sense I said that it's your view, not only your personal view but view of many people what you agree with. I don't honestly see why you think it is as a personal attack, please please refrain to become personal. But then other people consider that for example an animal, who is incapable of achieving the ability to recognize itself in the mirror, has no consciousness. And my link was added not because of self-promotion, AC is still very much in the beginning and there is not much established material, everything what fits in then is necessary for the field, also for understanding the field, this is why AC is exceptional, this was included as one of the few proposed AC programs, so far not proved to fail to satisfy the AC conditions, not as worthless and questionnable one of many AI programs. You certainly know that I'm not bad or dishonest person, so I would not remove other links if they would be added, in order my to prevail, what some may do without doubt. You can say that it is self-promotion if you and others prove that it is worthless and doesn't belong where it is. And finally, making this program added my experience in AC and helped me to understand it much better, what is so bad in that I use this experience to help people to put together more information about AC and understand it better?

So as a conclusion, for such relatively new and often much disputed fields as artificial consciousness, the only reasonable option would be that different points of view would be added in the same article, without removing one when adding the other, or changing one to comply with the other, to give reader the opportunity to decide what approach he would prefer.

tkorrovi

-----

I never said that recognizing oneself in a mirror was an essential test for consciousness. All I said was that there might be a set of tests, and that one of them (the self-recognition one) might be one of those tests, that that test might be failed, but all other tests passed, and that the tested device might still be conscious. It was a [[thought experiment]]. I quote myself:

:''Imagine that we had a device which we were testing to see if it was (artificially) conscious. Imagine it passes all of our varied test except one. Is it conscious? I think it might be. E.g. If one of our tests was to recognise oneself in a mirror (a reasonable test, I suggest) and that test were failed but all the other tests ot passed (e.g. that it could recognise when a joke was funny, it demonstrated sympathy when someone was hurt, it said it felt guilty when speeding) then I would say, OK, conscious. So the "all" is not a '''necessary''' condition.''

All the argument was doing was arguing for the removal of the word "all". It did not set out the definitive list of tests for consciousness. tkorrovi cannot attack the argument by attacking the examples. He must demonstrate why '''all''' the tests, whatever they might be, must be passed. He must demonstrate it because he insists that the word *all* is important. And if he doesn't, I will remove it again.

Now, I could deal with each of tkorrovi's other points in turn, but I am not going to, for the by now obvious reason.

[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 01:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-----

It's necessary to be capable to achieve all the abilities of consciousness for it to be artificial consciousness, otherwise if we satisfy only with one ability (or aspect) of consciousness, we may as well say that ability to calculate is one aspect of consciousness and state that calculator is artificial consciousness. Paul, you caused me a pain without a right or need to do so. I'm very tired of it. tkorrovi

-----

Logic 101: "Not all" is not the same as "one". How painful is that?

Let us say that one of the tests for consciousness was an ability to argue logically but that the entity being tested failed only that particular test. Would it be conscious? I suggest it would be, but frustratingly so.

[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 02:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-----

===Pay attention!===
"To neuroscientists, attention is a profoundly interesting and important phenomenon. We are constantly bombarded by information - smells, sounds, sights - yet we attend to only the slenderest sliver of the whole; the rest we tune out, just as you tune out the rumble of passing traffic as you read. Exactly how the brain achieves this feat is one of neuroscience's biggest questions, and for good reason: attention is intimately associated with consciousness. What you pay attention to defines how you experience the world from moment to moment." quoted from ''New Scientist vol 181 issue 2434 - 14 February 2004, page 32''

None of the stuff here seems to be informed about developments in neuroscience, which surely must be a better key to understanding consciousness, and by inference, artifical consciousness. If we get bogged down in epistemological arguments about whether even non-human creatures are capable of consciousness and rely instead on introspection to grapple with the nature of consciousness then I fear we will get nowhere, as appears to have been happening here! [[User:Matthew Stannard|Matt Stan]] 19:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----


:As we have established, there is an ''official'' romanization of Korean. I think it is unreasonable to forego the new romanization, because it ''will'' establish itself. People reading about Korea or learning Korean will more and more often come across the ''official'' spellings. Why should we work against this trend?
I would be happy to get nowhere as opposed to where tkorrovi would like us to go which is into falsehood or at least speculation. But to claim that neuroscience is the key to understanding of consciousness doesn't seem right to me. (I know I set myself up here against half of AI and AC researchers.) Brain scientists have a (rather limited) understanding of the brain, and the human brain represents perhaps the only but certainly one of the few conscious devices we can study. But imagine we tried to kickstart the development of automobiles by sending a modern motor vehicle back into the 1800's but with its bonnet welded shut. (That is where we are with the brain.) All it would do is act as inspiration: It would not help Benz (or whoever) to develop the internal combustion engine.


:We have redirects anyway. I don't think anyone who is interested in Korea will be profoundly confused about the ''e'' in ''Hangeul'', but I do think that people expect up-to-date spellings from Wikipedia. Meaning: people will be puzzled why Wikipedia sticks with outdated spellings, after all, we're not a book. The OED can't do it, but we ''can'' be up-to-date. --[[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 17:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Currently a neuroscientist is to consciousness what a Mercedes mechanic is to engineering. A blind, quadraplegic Mercedes mechanic.


== A hangul is a ''DEER''! ==
No, I think that developments will more likely come from computer science with the like's of Conway's Game of Life (OK, simplistic) and proposals for the Godel Machine (OK, not cogent). As Hofstadter seems to demonstrate there is a need to swallow one's tail in all complex things. Getting a program to modify itself recursively and to select a better version of itself seems a good way to go about it. Such programs already exist and are fascinating: Using toolsets developed by others I have provided the starting conditions which allowed a 1000's of generations of food-hunting program to eventually develop their own efficient algorithm, for example. The techniques I together with the excellent toolkit used are likely described here: [[genetic programming]].


As an aside, some disambiguation-related matter: A hangul is also a red deer ''Cervus cashmiriensis'' from the Cashmere. This name has been mentioned six times from 1858 to 1970s (that's as recent as OED gets). Knowing how selectively [[OED]] chooses its quotes, that's relatively a lot. Maybe that's why one gets so many Google hits on ''Hangul'', which also includes the deer. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That is all Schmidhuber's proposed Godel Machine is: It is genetic programming layered on top of a starting condition that defines consciousness. No big deal. It is the starting condition which is interesting and to which he pays scant attention in his paper.


:I have searched for ''Hangul'' and ''deer'' and ''Kashmir'' repectively and don't get many hits, though. [[User:Kokiri|Kokiri]] 12:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Psb777|Paul Beardsell]] 02:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:33, 11 March 2004

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

Jamo order

Jamo order needs update. One listed in the article is actually South Korean order. Here's North Korean order:

ㄱㄴㄷㄹㅁㅂㅅㅇㅈㅊㅋㅌㅍㅎㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉㅇ

First ㅇ, if it represents sound /ng/. Second ㅇ, is zero. Note that ㄲㄸㅃㅆㅉ is placed *after* all other jamos, not just after their simple counterpart.

For vowels:

ㅏㅑㅓㅕㅗㅛㅜㅠㅡㅣㅐㅒㅔㅖㅚㅟㅢㅘㅝㅙㅞ

Again, ㅐ and ㅔ is placed after all basic vowels, not after ㅏ and ㅓ.

And the comment that Choi Sejin established the current order, is although correct, but misleading. What he decided is *basic jamo order*. Nothing about five glottalized consonants, or combined vowels. So South and Korea differ in these matters, but same in basics. -- 143.248.205.98

A varied order is interesting. Thank you for the info. They have been added. --Menchi 10:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Lattices

Some claims that King Sejong visualized the written characters after studying the intricate lattice work one sees on the sliding doors found in classic Korean homes. But the others say that it is a rumor spread under the Japanese rule, in order to condemn the language of a colony.

It's not obvious to me how this theory/story/rumor could be considered "condemning". Could you explain further?
Ok, perhaps I picked wrong word. (I am not a native speaker of English) But Hangul is a deep philosophical and phonological system, not just the imitation of lattice. Ok, I would revise the article, wait a minute.
Okay, I see what you're getting at. But some environmental stimulus (for instance, intricite latticework) can still serve as inspiration leading to someone with a sharp mind developing a deep philosophical and phonological system, which is how I interpreted the claim. Nothing derogatory that I can see.
Inspiration, possible. By the way there is no evidence for that. And a preceeding paragraph states how letters were designed, which is supported by evidences.
Sure... but it doesn't sound any nastier than the "so-and-so invented X after noticing Y in Z, and realizing that he could use the W method to make X work perfectly" statements to be found in glowingly praiseful biographies of inventors. So, while it may be a rumor, legend, or what have you (insofar as it's unsupported by any evidence), it's not in the least bit negative in any way I've yet been able to figure out. Why the need to be defensive about it?

Oops, "jal motaiyo". I was a bit hasty with the patterns thing. Correction coming in 5 minutes. Bear with me. Cham-kan ki-da-ri-se-yo.

Alphabet image

Removed from article:

The Korean letters for "Hangul" in above table are not correct. The incorrect letters are pronounced as /hang-ul/. But the "Hangul" is pronounced like /han-gl/ and the correct letters are 한글.

That, and the table's labelled in French. :) Actually, there's already a version with the spelling corrected (I've just switched it above), but I'm still going to make a French-free version. (Or... no, I think it's still wrong. Just differently so.) --Brion
Maybe (but I don't know) the version should also be made to fit English pronounciation rules (or global ones), since this one may be using the French ones. Jeronimo
Hmm, that table seems to be a mish-mash of different transcription systems (or just one I haven't encountered -- not unlikely, as I'm not very familiar with Korean). Unless someone has a better idea, I'd suggest using the current South Korean official romanization. --Brion

Forgot to include the move in the summary. But I rephrased and moved the following to Korean language:

As an aside, hangeul characters are not completely phonetic in themselves. For example, JongLo is pronounced as JongNo and HanKukMal as HangGungMal. The rules for word pronunciation are quite regular, though.

These are examples of "irregularities" governed by phonetic rules, which existed before Hangul. The Hangul spelling is always regular, regardless of pronunciation. (Although the consistency is amazingly high.) So anyway, that's why it's moved to the Language article, because it's an aspect of the language.

Myth

Hey, 66.156.33.26, don't you know some Koreans claim that the so-called Garimto script was the forerunner of Hangul. --Nanshu 02:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Garimto is still mysterious and it's not well-accepted. Who knows? Possibly, Garimto could be another "Jinda-moji." Nobody knows its origins. And please, stop watering down the explanation of Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26
Anybody is free to create detailed articles on Jinda-moji or Garimto, then improve them. I would, except I know nothing about them. Please bring minute details there, not on the general introduction to Hangul. --Menchi 23:06, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
People have different opinions on whether or not the two "mystery languages" are real or bogus fakes. Wouldn't that "clash"---lack of better words. Also, there is not much information on Garimto, but there seems to be some info on Jindai-moji. --66.156.33.26
Write how ever much on either one or both article as you could research. Other Wikipedians will follow with more info if they could. Just be careful not to be pursuasive (i.e., subtly trying to make our encyclopedia article agree with theory A or B). --Menchi 23:37, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I moved the thing to Tondemo. This would be the right place. Yes, it is entertainment except for few believers. --Nanshu 01:36, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have added tables giving the names of the jamo, corrected the number of jamo (51, not 52), elaborated upon the makeup of that number (simple vs. combined; vowels vs. consonants), and added some other material (Korean words for "consonant" and "vowel," for example).

--Sewing ~16:00, 26 Sept 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Nanshu! There's no reference to Garimto on your Tondemo page, leading to the implication that by clicking on the Tondemo link at the bottom of the Hangul page that you think Hangul or its history is "outrageous nonsense." I'm sure that's not your intention; could you please fix this? Sewing 18:04, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Coding

Sewing, I'm curious about what you are doing with this conversion of Hangul. Why are you doing it and where can we get more information on these two different coding systems? Rschmertz 23:10, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unicode has two different sets of Hangeul Jamo: "Hangeul Jamo" (starting with hex 1100/decimal 4352) and "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo" (starting with hex 3130/decimal 12592). (There is apparently yet a third set, also called "Hangeul Compatibility Jamo," starting at hex FFA0/decimal 65440; these are half-width, as opposed to the full-width forms of the 3130 block.) I switched simply because while I could view the 1100-block characters in Opera, I could not see them in Internet Explorer; whereas after the switch to the 3130 block, I could view the jamo in both browsers with no problem. The explanation for the difference comes from Section 10.4 (p. 275) of the Online Edition of the Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, which says that the 1100 block can be used for composing syllable blocks, and is ordered in such a way as to enable sorting, with initial consonants coming first, then all the medial vowels, then the final consonants. The 3100 and FFA0 blocks, on the other hand, are not designed for syllable composition or sorting--the initial and final consonants are merged into a single sequence, followed by all the vowels. The 3100 block exists "solely for compatibility with the KS C 5601 standard," which apparently Microsoft follows.... Well, I hope that answers your question: sorry if my reply tends on the long side, but better more info than less, right? --Yours, Sewing 14:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Move page back to Hangul

I'm not sure, if I'm doing right. According to the new romanization, the title must be Hangeul. I made a Hangeul page, and make it redirect this page. But I think it's better to change the title of this page to Hangeul and leave a note that the romanization Hangul is out-dated. --Xaos, early 2003

This page should be moved back to Hangul. That is the most common name used in English. [1] Nohat 02:43, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

I have replied to your completely unhelpful request on your Talk page. --Sewing 05:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Seeing as how this is the English Wikipedia, we have an obligation to follow the primary naming convention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We have no obligation to follow the "official" romanizations of Korean according to anyone. English spelling is beholden to no foreign standardizing organization, regardless of the origin of the word. "Hangul" has entries in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the OED, and the American Heritage Dictionary, while "Hangeul" is in none of them. "Hangul" is the the predominant spelling in English, and it is the spelling that should be used in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) even says "Exceptions to this are English words borrowed from Korean, whose irregular spellings have crystallized in English." Nohat 15:04, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Why don't you go hassle people about the spelling of Peking and Mao Tse-tung and come back here when you're finished with that? -- Dominus 15:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, because "Beijing" is more common than "Peking" [2] and "Mao Zedong" is more common than "Mao Tse-tung" [3]. Nevertheless, "Hangul" is more common than "Hangeul" [4]. Nohat 15:21, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
And how do you think it got that way? All your arguments about "Hangul" would have applied equally well to "Peking" thirty years ago. "Beijing" is more common now only because official sources such as newpapers, magazines, dictionaries, and encyclopedias acceded to the desire of the Chinese government to change the official spelling. The request of the South Korean government to change the spelling of "Hangul" is no different. -- Dominus 15:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's because the official Pinyin spelling has had time to filter its way into English. I wrote the rule this morning on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) that you're referring to, in response to you. I added the caveat that the exception should only apply to words used frequently in a non-Korean context. Anyhow, Hangul currently redirects to Hangeul, and the spelling "Hangul" is acknowledged—in bold, no less—in the first sentence. --Sewing 15:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and "Hangeul" has not "filtered its way into English". "Hangul" is the English name of the Korean writing system. "Hangul" is the English word, as listed in English dictionaries, and is the way it should be spelled in the English Wikipedia. If "Hangeul" ever becomes the more common spelling in English, then we can change the page's name. Until then, the page should be at "Hangul" and it should be spelled "Hangul". This is exactly like "Kimchi" and "Taekwondo"---and we should use English spellings. Nohat 15:36, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
And 30 years ago I would have expected to find an article under "Peking" as almost no one in the English speaking world would hae known what "Beijing" was. However, that has changed, and most people know about "Beijing". It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to be normative: we have no obligation to accede to the requests of the South Koreans until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes well-established in English, which it has not. Furthermore, until the spelling "Hangeul" becomes more common than "Hangul", the analogy argument with "Beijing" and "Mao Zedong" is moot. Nohat 16:02, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that article titles should be in the most common form in English usage, with variant spellings described in the article overview. We should be descriptive and not prescriptive, and therefore official government spellings shouldn't have any undue influence upon article titles at all (though they should, of course, be mentioned. Once words switch spelling in common English usage, then the article should be moved then, but not before. The government's official name is a part of the process of the spelling change, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor for our purposes. ---Seth Ilys 16:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Accepted. I'll leave the article the way Nohat last edited it, leaving Hangul as the lead entry word with an appropriately parenthetized mention of Hangeul. As for Nohat's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," you could have persuaded me without resorting to insults. --Sewing 17:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry you were insulted. Brion used the same Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation on Talk:Devanagari, and I thought it was appropriate here as well. I didn't intend to imply that you had a small mind; I just wanted to illustrate that even the great masters admit that consistency isn't always the greatest goal to strive for. Nohat 18:09, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and I agree. Despite the strong imprint of Confucian conformity, part of the beauty of Korean culture is its individualism: witness the myriad spellings of Korean personal names. Like French with its Académie française, (South) Korean spelling and pronunciation rules are set by a central body. Despite this, the romanization of personal names is so idiosyncratic that the government's own rules say that a person's name should just be spelled according to his or her own preference, rules be damned! --Sewing 18:26, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is mad. Google is not our god. Korean has a given (controlled, read official) spelling. I think it is crucial we follow the official spelling: let's undo these changes. Kokiri 23:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here a quote from Google test: It should be stressed that none of these applications is conclusive evidence, but simply a first-pass heuristic. --Kokiri 23:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There's no such thing as an official spelling in the English language. Users of English are beholden to no foreign government to dictate how they should spell words in English. "Hangeul" may be the proper way to romanize the Korean word 한글 but "Hangul" is the English name for the Korean writing system. In dictionaries. It's spelled "Hangul". That usage is more prevalent on the web. If you think this page should be on Hangeul then you should also move Kimchi to Gimchi and Taekwondo to Taegwondo. Why is it "crucial" that we follow the official spelling?
I wish you had read the discussion above before moving the page again. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Nohat 23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
Well, you have now insulted both of the two most active contributors on Korea-related topics. I have referred the Hangeul-vs.-Hangul question to Menchi, who has some interest in Korea-related matters but as far as I know would have a more detached position on this issue than the other participants. --Sewing 01:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Detached I am from the dusty world...," enters the monk:
Nohat claims that Hangul is "the English word, as listed in English dictionaries". It seems so, as the OED's entry is Hangul. But OED's earliest quote is only about 50 years ago. Which, as Nohat admits, means the word hasn't "filtered through". Not only that, this 1951 quote by C. Osgood in Koreans & their Culture xvi. 323 is not really Hangul, but the McCune-Reischauer Hangŭl. Ironically, it was Shannon McCune (younger bro of McCune) who ignored the breve in his 1966 Korea: Land of Broken Calm (but then he also totally mistranslated Joseon in the book title....)
My conclusion is that having like 50 years of ocassional "unfiltered-through" use does not seem long. Worse, a linguistic technical term like Hangul will probably NEVER be filtered through as action-y words like Kung fu or tasty words like tofu did. The confusion of this matter is that Hangul, IF an English word, seems to be in a half-living half-dead state. So, does it still count as a legitimate English word? Or should be follow the consistency of the very official 2000 SK Romanization?
My feeling is that, until SK 2000 ages a bit and is recognized internationally like Hanyu Pinyin, we can stick with "Hangul". Shall the United Nations proclaim its adoption of SK 2000 as it did with Hanyu Pinyin in the 70s, we can switch to Hangeul. But the Korean government has been really gung ho about the new romanization and actually enforced on its citizens all these years. So I think its international standardization is a definite possibility.
However, regarding to other article titles, unless OED has the word, I definitely support SK 2000 (breve absolutely does not appear in WP titles). ---Menchi 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nohat, just wanted to let you know that, afaik, both Sewing and I are tired of persistent edits without consultation of the community. I did never argue that there was an official spelling in English, but pointed out that there is one in Korean. On the other hand, your edit summary reads Use *correct* spelling of English word Hangul (my highlighting). As for 'being able to easily change to Hangeul when it is more common'... who is going to change the spellings in the texts (not just the links)? Finally, is it odd that a dictionary from 1989 doesn't have a spelling introduced 4 years ago? Kokiri

Just wanted to add that I did read the discussion before either moving or commenting on this. I don't think allegations (23:58, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)) are a good way to handle this. Kokiri 12:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite done yet. First of all, I wish to publicly state my disappointment that one person (in this case Nohat) comes and unilaterally changes the naming conventions and then all the links and then keeps reverting. If at least he changed all occurrences of Hangeul into Hangul. I'm too tired to insist on my preference, but I will spell it out. IMHO it's ridiculous to spend so much energy on arguing about a mere e in a word that is transcribed anyway. We can do this once we've written all the articles, filled Wikipedia with content.
As we have established, there is an official romanization of Korean. I think it is unreasonable to forego the new romanization, because it will establish itself. People reading about Korea or learning Korean will more and more often come across the official spellings. Why should we work against this trend?
We have redirects anyway. I don't think anyone who is interested in Korea will be profoundly confused about the e in Hangeul, but I do think that people expect up-to-date spellings from Wikipedia. Meaning: people will be puzzled why Wikipedia sticks with outdated spellings, after all, we're not a book. The OED can't do it, but we can be up-to-date. --Kokiri 17:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A hangul is a DEER!

As an aside, some disambiguation-related matter: A hangul is also a red deer Cervus cashmiriensis from the Cashmere. This name has been mentioned six times from 1858 to 1970s (that's as recent as OED gets). Knowing how selectively OED chooses its quotes, that's relatively a lot. Maybe that's why one gets so many Google hits on Hangul, which also includes the deer. --Menchi 05:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have searched for Hangul and deer and Kashmir repectively and don't get many hits, though. Kokiri 12:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_consciousness&oldid=2723413"