Try writing it in Premise. I have a new version if you'd like. It may be easier, being a literal-based language,as opposed to a symbolic language. ~PM
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:18:41 -0500 > Subject: Re: [agi] It would be easy to write an artificial language that was > similar to a natural language > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Well just to finish, the plan is that I will start by defining and > using a simple language to express simple ideas. At first I will use > extensive annotation to help define how the program should use the > language. Since I will also be modifying the program as I go, the > programming and the language will create a simulation of how the > program might work. Of course it would be simplistic and it would be > based on the artificiality of using the annotations (as well as other > analysis of the language) to determine some actions that it should > take in trying to use the ideas expressed. I will not be programming > the response mechanisms to seem like the program knew things that it > had not learned, I will be designing the program to use the > 'knowledge' that it had previously derived through the exchanges that > it had with me, the 'user'. > > So at first it will be a crude simulation of an AGI program. I will be > programming it, using the language as well as the developing > programming, to act as I wished it would act. As the program started > to learn some things for itself, I will then start designing the > program to use that kind of learned knowledge more effectively and I > should be annotating the text in a way that will be a better > simulation of what the program might eventually be able to do based on > my observations of how it reacts. And, over time, as I learn what > might be more feasible, my annotations should look more like the sort > of thing that the program might actually be able to derive for itself. > My hope is that I will eventually find practical (or feasible) methods > for the program to use and my annotations will become more simple and > more casual. It would be impossible to annotate every detail that is > needed to understand a language that was like a natural language. > > At first my annotations will not look like the kinds of relations a > computer program might actually detect, but eventually my simulations > should look more and more like the kind of relations a feasible > program could detect and the program will be able to figure out more > for itself. > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- 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
