it is already embeded in the design of the agent..considering phonological events
>________________________________ > From: Mike Tintner <[email protected]> >To: AGI <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:37 PM >Subject: Re: [agi] Steve's placement/payload theory of language > > >PM: * What do they think about defining basic concepts > as types of the recognition and action procedures > of an agent? > >What does he mean? Could mean a lot of things. Any relation to Barsalou’s ideas? > > > > >________________________________ > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:34:07 +0100Subject: Re: FW: [agi] Steve's placement/payload theory of languageFrom: Roland HausserTo: [email protected] Michael,Thank you very much for your email. I readthe comments by Jim Bromer and Steve Richfieldwith great interest. They lead me to the following questions:* Are their respective approaches sign-oriented or agent-oriented?* What do they think about defining basic concepts as types of the recognition and action procedures of an agent?* How about reusing these basic concepts as the literal meanings of a language?Happy Easter to you!Looking forward to be reading from you,Best regards,Roland Hausser >AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
