Okay, I'm going to wave the white flag and say that what we should do is
all get together a few days early for the conference next March, in
Memphis, and discuss all these issues in high-bandwidth mode!
Definitely. I'm not sure that we're at all in disagreement except that I'm
still trying to operate at the natural language level (which I don't think
that you're objecting to currently) and I think that you think you're
considering operating at either a slightly lower level or an orthogonal one
(which I think will work also but possibly not as easily/efficiently). As
long as what I'm saying falls under your definition of "distributed
semantics" (which it seems to . . . :-), there isn't a disagreement there.
the "meaning" of chair not be localizable.
Meanings are always context-dependent. A large percentage of the time the
context is the "global default" so we don't realize this. I think that this
is a large source of the "grounding problem". A specific item is
localizable. An archetype is localizable. But once you get much past that,
it's all fuzzy until you consider the context.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Distributed Semantics [WAS Re: [agi] Religion-free
technical content]
Okay, I'm going to wave the white flag and say that what we should do is
all get together a few days early for the conference next March, in
Memphis, and discuss all these issues in high-bandwidth mode!
But one last positive thought. A response to your remark:
So let's look at the mappings from throne or stump to chair . . . . A
throne does not have four legs but it is used for sitting. Which way do
you want to go? Or, if someone is currently sitting on the stump, how do
you want to go on that one?
It isn't just the representation but also how you operate on the
representation . . . .
I agree completely! This is exactly the way I think of it, and it is part
of what I am calling "distributed semantics" because the thing that we
refer to as the "meaning" of the term [chair] cannot be pinned down in a
precise way, but is a result of all the interactions between the atom that
represents [chair] and the many things that can interact with it. It is
the fact that the entire system is capable of visualizing a stump as a
chair (it visualises the operation of [sitting] applied to the stump, and
the result is a perfectly reasonable scenario) that makes the "meaning" of
chair not be localizable.
There are innumerable objects in the universe that I could apply that
[sitting] operation to (although some are difficult, such as individual
atoms), so almost anything could be a chair. But then, do we say that
[chair] is defined as anything that we can apply the [sitting] action to?
Hell no! What about using [squatting]? If the king of the jungle squats
on a tree stump, is the stump a throne? Yup. What about [dancing]? If
some chairs are used by a dance troupe performing in local park, and the
point of the dance is that all of the moves take place on chairs, BUT one
of the chairs is actually a tree stump, is the stump a chair? Kind of.
And so on. This is all about the boundaries between concepts (about which
the cog psychologists have much to say), and if remember correctly
Barsalou even has a theory along these lines.
So, do wonder if we are not saying siilar things, but in different
language.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=8660244&id_secret=48940065-7c78bc
