I continue to maintain that:
* syntactic ambiguity is unnecessary in a language of thought or communication
* some level of semantic ambiguity is unavoidable and in fact essential...
ben
On 8/20/06, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/19/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In "blackboard" the NL word maps to either "a board that is black in
color"
> > or "a board for writing that is usually black/green/white". The KR of
those
> > concepts are unambiguous; it's just that there are 2 alternatives.
>
> This is very naive... a concept such as "a board that is black in
> color" is not unambiguous at all ...
>
> -- what % of the board needs to be black ?
>
> -- what kind of object really qualifies as a board?
>
> -- how dark does something have to be, to be black?
>
> etc.
>
> the answers to these questions depend on context, so whether an object
> is classified as "a board that is black in color" depends on
> context... quite independently of any linguistic ambiguities
> associated...
The 'language' used in KR need not be context-dependent or ambiguous. If
the blackboard is recognized (by the sensory perception module) as 'black',
that would be the best description in KR, because that's the limit of
sensory perception. Of course, normally the AGI will have more details of
the board such as better color discernment, and that the board has a frame,
etc.
I still think the KR language does not need context-dependency or ambiguity.
Except ambiguities with respect to the external world, which always exist.
YKY ________________________________
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
