No, I mean applying to other "modality" so to say, to some other kind
of problem solving, not to another language
Ah. And this is the basis for my repeated clarification about NLP requiring
general cognition of a specific level (or type). Path-finding cognition
certainly isn't required for NLP and category-creation/discovery probably
isn't either -- and most people would definitely include the latter, if not
the former, in AGI. In this sense, NLP certainly *is* "only" a sub-part of
AGI.
I think what is enough is for an NLP *module* is a flexible model of
supplying contexts, so that, for example, a non-grammatical
metaphorical reading could take precedence on literal grammatical
reading.
NLP cannot read poetry without an AGI over its shoulder.
Again, I'll state that I don't think/believe that the problem can be
partitioned this way. I think that the NLP WILL have to be able to read and
understand poetry or it won't have the necessary smarts to be able to do
it's job.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukasz Stafiniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
On 4/28/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think this is the operational sense of NLP as pursued by
> applying linguistic theories in narrow AI setting. (e.g. Dynamic
> Syntax, DRT, HPSG, ...)
but we want to apply NLP generally (i.e. not just in a narrow AI setting)
(For what it's worth, I meant the level of NLP as narrow-AI, not the
level of its application. But I agree.)
> I was writing in context of Mark Waser language-specific solutions (as
> I understand them), which if wished could be later reused in boarder
> contexts.
Actually, to convert from one language-specific version to another would
be
pretty trivial I believe. I think that all it would require would be
tagging each word with a language, a languageA to languageB dictionary,
and
No, I mean applying to other "modality" so to say, to some other kind
of problem solving, not to another language: NLP shouldn't be language
specific as far as the theory behind it isn't. (It is OK to restrict
to English-like languages if this makes things simpler, but why limit
to a particular flavor of English?)
>> In other words, although there is enough special-purpose hardware in
there to
>> make it make sense to call language a "module", the full capability is
>> so
>> interwoven with general cognition that it can't be separated across a
>> bottleneck.
I agree strongly with Josh here . . . .
> We stumble here on the meaning of capacity in this context. For
> example, a general GUI library is not expected to be generally
> intelligent.
because I don't think that a general NLP is possible without general
intelligence (again, of a *very* specific level).
I think what is enough is for an NLP *module* is a flexible model of
supplying contexts, so that, for example, a non-grammatical
metaphorical reading could take precedence on literal grammatical
reading.
NLP cannot read poetry without an AGI over its shoulder.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
