On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > regarding denotational semantics: > I prefer to think of the meaning of X as the fuzzy set of patterns > associated with X. (In fact, I recall giving a talk on this topic at a > meeting of the American Math Society in 1990 ;-) >
I like denotational semantics as an example (even though it doesn't suggest uncertainty), because it's a well-understood semantic model with meaning assigned to deep intermediate steps, in nontrivial ways. It's easier to see by analogy to this how abstract thought that relates to misremembered experience of 20 years ago and that never gets outwardly expressed still has meaning, and how to assign it which meaning. What form meaning takes depends on the model that assigns meaning to the system, which when we cross the line into realm of human-level understanding becomes a mind, and so meaning, in a technical sense, becomes a functional aspect of AGI. If AGI works on something called "fuzzy set of patterns", then it's the meaning of what it models. There is of course a second step when you yourself, as an engineer, assign meaning to aspects of operation of AGI, and to relations between AGI and what it models, in your own head, but this perspective loses technical precision, although to some extent it's necessary. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
