Andi, OK, I agree, but if we are to do intelligent computing, we must somehow represent what we read and know. Apparently, the reason people have been gravitating to a textual representation (that can't possibly support computing) is because they lack anything better.
What is needed here is a proposal of some sort, to get this ball rolling. Any ideas? Steve ================= On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Andrew G. Babian <[email protected]>wrote: > I would go with Todor on this one. More specifically, it's very clear to > me that language cannot be the bottom or basis of representation. A > language system has to be a piece on top of the basic system. It may be > the most important piece to us, because for interaction with us, and > ability to use our body of written knowledge and contribute to it, a system > will need to use language. But, that need in no way implies that you could > ever get any intelligent behavior if you just start at the level of > language. There are plenty of reasons to think otherwise. > > And I think it has been very misleading that because of the importance of > language, systems that use text as just meaningly data have been somewhat > useful, much more so than other approach. I'm talking about statistical > NLP. That word-bag stuff and Google's big corpus stuff. It managed to be > something we could do without too much work, and crowds out real progress. > It uses an oversimplified model of knowledge as exact recording. Meanings > just are not recordings. > Andi > > > > On Apr 3, 2013, at 3:12 AM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > > One thought from me: throw away NL for representations in an intelligent > system, unless there's a mind that does understand it completely - e.g. one > that can unroll and map any ambiguous vague NL item (as long as it falls in > its cognitive reach) down to sensory data specifics or/and > theory/implementation details; and back. > > > >Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:07:18 -0700 > > Subject: [agi] What is "understanding"? > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > Aaron, et al, > > > Recent discussions regarding representation brings up an even more > fundamental question - what is "understanding". > >(...) > > >I am NOT looking for vague wishy-washy words. I am looking for a solid > definition that defines the outer boundary of > >"understanding", > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
