To avoid further confusion about what I propose, let me cite from http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics.pdf
--- page 23 --- ... we do not mean that a word in a natural language gets its meaning only by its relation with other words in the language, because human experience is not limited to a language channel, but closely related to sensation, perception, and action (Barsalou, 1999; Harnad, 1990). However, the general principle is still applicable here, that is, a word gets its meaning by its experienced relations with the system's other experiential components, which may be words, perceptive images, motor sequences, and so on. In a system like this, the meaning of a word is much more complex than in a system whose experience is limited to a language channel, but it does not rule out the latter case as a possible way for words (terms, symbols) to be meaningful. For example, a software agent can get all of its experience in this manner, and we cannot deny that it is genuine experience. --- page 24 --- The definition of meaning in NARS is similar to conceptual role semantics and semantic network (Harman, 1982; Kitchener, 1994; Quillian, 1968), where the meaning of a concept (or word) is defined by the role it plays in a conceptual system (or a natural language). The difference between experience-grounded semantics and those theories are: • In NARS, the relations among terms are not definitional or linguistic, but experienced relations that happen in the interaction between a system and its environment, therefore they are dynamic and subjective in nature. • In NARS, the relations between a term and others are concretely specified by its extension and intension, consisting of inheritance relations, whose meaning and properties are formally specified. • In NARS, whenever a term is used, only part of its meaning is involved. In other words, the "current meaning" of a term is not exactly its "general meaning" in the long run. Pei On Feb 16, 2008 12:32 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > PeI:> To test the power of "visual reasoning", here is a rough visual > > > explanation on two very different ways for "symbols" to get their > > > meaning: > > > > > > http://nars.wang.googlepages.com/wang.semantics-figure.pdf > > > > > > > Wow, I have to stop talking but this is really stimulating. Your > > paper/illustrations are v. useful as far as they go, but they are almost > > literally the tip of the iceberg. Your Experience-Grounded Semantics > > represents a flower/pot as a tree or net of attached symbols > > > > "plant - containing - blossom - round" etc > > > > Now can we please have the VAST attached clusters/ trees of images of > > flowers and pots that your brain has, and uses, to understand and process > > flowers/plants > > That's called a semantic network. Words are associated with other words that > appear near it in a large corpus of text, for example: > http://labs.google.com/sets?hl=en&q1=flower&q2=plant&q3=pot&q4=containing&q5=blossom&btn=Large+Set > > I agree that non symbolic (e.g. visual) processing is important for systems > with non-symbolic I/O. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
