OK, understood... On Dec 4, 2007 9:32 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > >> Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use > >> whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with) > >> a learning mechanism that allows the system itself to generate its own > >> understanding (or, at least, acquisition) of grammar IN THE CONTEXT OF A > >> MECHANISM THAT ALSO ACCOMPLISHES REAL UNDERSTANDING. When that larger > >> issue is dealt with, a NL parser will arise naturally, and any previous > >> work on non-developmental, hand-built parsers will be completely > >> discarded. You were trumpeting the importance of work that I know will > >> be thrown away later, and in the mean time will be of no help in > >> resolving the important issues. > > > > Richard, you discount the possibility that said NL parser will play a key > > role in the adaptive emergence of a system that can generate its own > > linguistic understanding. I.e., you discount the possibility that, with the > > right learning mechanism and instructional environment, hand-coded > > rules may serve as part of the initial seed for a learning process that will > > eventually generate knowledge obsoleting these initial hand-coded > > rules. > > > > It's fine that you discount this possibility -- I just want to point out > > that > > in doing so, you are making a bold and unsupported theoretical hypothesis, > > rather than stating an obvious or demonstrated fact. > > > > Vaguely similarly, the "grammar" of child language is largely thrown > > away in adulthood, yet it was useful as scaffolding in leading to the > > emergence of adult language. > > The problem is that this discussion has drifted away from the original > context in which I made the remarks. > > I do *not* discount the possibility that an ordinary NL parser may play > a role in the future. > > What I was attacking was the idea that a NL parser that does a wonderful > job today (but which is built on a formalism that ignores all the issues > involved in getting an adaptive language-understanding system working) > is IPSO FACTO going to be a valuable step in the direction of a full > adaptive system. > > It was the linkage that I dismissed. It was the idea that BECAUSE the > NL parser did such a great job, therefore it has a very high probability > of being a great step on the road to a full adaptive (etc) language > understanding system. > > If the NL parser completely ignores those larger issues I am justified > in saying that it is a complete crap shoot whether or not this > particular parser is going to be of use in future, more complete > theories of language. > > But that is not the same thing as making a blanket dismissal of all > parsers, saying they cannot be of any use as (as you point out) seed > material in the design of a complete system. > > I was objecting to Ed's pushing this particular NL parser in my face and > insisting that I should respect it as a substantial step towards full > AGI ..... and my objection was that I find models like that all show > and no deep substance precisely because they ignore the larger issues > and go for the short-term gratification of a parser that works really well. > > So I was not taking the position you thought I was. > > > > > 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=72155184-923590
