Jim, You're missing the boat. I'm talking about Semiosis, not Semiotics. I'm talking about how we link signs to our internal semantic network, not how we take visual readings of situations (though they are close). ~PM
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 05:33:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [agi] Semiosis From: [email protected] To: [email protected] First of all, my example of a couple of sentences from the Wikipedia article may have been a little biased because the sentences were introductory. But, perhaps another example that uses that example may better illustrate my point. I believe that the analysis of the sentences that I made in that previous example is far more significant to the problem we are trying to solve then an analysis of semiotics. Now do you agree with me? Because if you don't then you don't think my example which referred to my previous example where I discussed the fluffiness of a couple of sentences about semiotics is significant. The thing is, if you do not think that my comment (that an analysis of sentences is more relevant to the thing we are most interested in than will be found in a discussion of semiotics) then the sign that I made trying to direct your attention to my initial analysis of the sentences did not adequately capture the significance of what I was saying. And I know perfectly well that you are yet to be convinced. In order to get my point across I am going to have 'point' to the significance of the analysis of simple sentences again in order to stress the point. And I will have to 'point' out that the belief that there is some fundamental abstraction which will make all the difference in creating an effective AGI program is reasonable only when you realize that any discussion may generate an important abstraction. In other words, the abstraction of semiotics, while important in it's simplest form, is pretty shallow in its more elaborated form. I am contrasting the superficiality of the elaboration of semiotics against the untapped potential of the analysis simple sentences to discover something more about how language works (in relation to our interest in AGI). The problem, as I see it, is that semiotics did not work. Formal computational analysis of syntax did not work. Iconic representations and symbol grounding did not work. Weighted reasoning did not work. There is something that we have to discover and the ecstasy of letting every grain of semiotics slowly pass through your hands will not lead to that discovery. Analyzing simple sentences, I am saying, has a better chance to leading to something interesting than a discussion of semiotics. Now, you may still disagree with me, but if you were willing to carefully read what I wrote you will have a much better idea of what I am saying. So then you might say that my comments contained multiple 'signs' in order to direct your attention to my illustration of my point of view, but then you would just be replacing the analysis of how sentences work with a shallow assertion that the sentences just contained signs. Even if they did (and I do not deny the basic idea that I was trying to 'point' something out to you) that kind of search for the semiotics of language is not a very vivid substitute for a more lively analysis of meaning. There has clearly been something missing in the study of concepts, and I believe that the study of language, as it directly might be related to AGI, is a good way to discover it. The study of Semiotics is not. Jim ------------------------------------------- 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
