Lukasz, Thanks!
To me, your "logical semantics" and "linguistic semantics" correspond to "meaning of concepts" and "meaning of words", respectively, and the latter is a subset of the former, as far as an individual is concerned. Some random comments on the Multinet material: *. Principal requirements for a KRS -- completeness: it is easy to show that a KRS is incomplete, but hard (if possible) to show/prove it is complete. -- consistency: though it is desired, it cannot be garrantteed, even locally (also, how 'local' is local?) *. CD theory: Though the idea in very intuitive, it is fundamentally wrong, for two major reasons: (1) Unlike the situation of chemistry, where everything can be analyzed as compound formed by 100+ chemical elements, meaning of a concept/word cannot be reduced into "semantic primitives". Though we can use simpler concepts to define complicated ones, such a definition never capture the full meaning of the latter, but can only approximate it to various degrees. (2) The meaning of a concept/word is not a constant, but a variable. Of course, any description of it will be constant, but it is just a "snapshot" taken as a moment, and the semantic theory must allow meaning to change, rather than attempt to specify the "real" or "true" meaning, or to converge to such an "attractor". The second mistake is also committed by many other semantic theories in AI. *. Description logics: It is moving to the right direction (by including structured concepts, IS-A relation, efficiency consideration, etc.), though it is still too close to First-Order Predicate Logic to be practical for commonsense reasoning. Especially, the distinction between TBox and ABox is conceptually wrong --- the so-called "definitions" cannot be fundamentally different from empirical knowledge. *. KB and the world: still depends on Tarskian semantics, with KR aiming at to describe the world "as it is". *. R-Axioms (default rules): how to handle exception? *. B-Axioms: every one has exception. In summary, though there are some new ideas, I don't think this theory is moving towards AGI, though no doubt it can find applications in special problems here or there. Pei On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have recently polished my copy-and-paste slides on Multinet: > > http://www.ii.uni.wroc.pl/~lukstafi/pmwiki/uploads/AGI/Multinet.pdf > > Pei Wang also gives an interesting chapter about semantics in AGI-Curriculum. > > By "logical semantics" I mean the meaning of the contents of mind, and > by "linguistic semantics" the meaning of the contents of > communication. > What AGI-importance do you assign to capturing the semantics of > natural language? (And NL-semantics' impact on logical semantics, as > opposed to letting the computer build the representation for itself, > out of some elementary thought mechanics.) > > P.S. Thanks to Pei Wang for the interesting curriculum and to Stephen > Reed for the great work on Texai. > > ------------------------------------------- > 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=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
