For the discussion of the subject the details of the pattern representation are not important at all. It is sufficient if you agree that a spoken sentence represent a certain set of patterns which are translated into the sentence. The receiving agent retranslates the sentence and matches the content with its model by activating similar patterns.
The activation of patterns is extremely fast and happens in real time. The brain even predicts patterns if it just hears the first syllable of a word: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3244 There is no creation of new patterns and there is no intelligent algorithm which manipulates patterns. It is just translating, sending, receiving and retranslating. >From the ambiguities of natural language you obtain some hints about the structure of the patterns. But you cannot even expect to obtain all detail of these patterns by understanding the process of language understanding. There will be probably many details within these patterns which are only necessary for internal calculations. These details will be not visible from the linguistic point of view. Just think about communicating computers and you will know what I mean. - Matthias Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, You seem - correct me - to be going a long way round saying that words are different from concepts - they're just sound-and-letter labels for concepts, which have a very different form. And the processing of words/language is distinct from and relatively simple compared to the processing of the underlying concepts. So take THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT or THE MIND HAS ONLY CERTAIN PARTS WHICH ARE SENTIENT or THE US IS THE HOME OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS the words "c-a-t" or "m-i-n-d" or "U-S" or "f-i-n-a-n-c-i-a-l c-r-i-s-i-s" are distinct from the underlying concepts. The question is: What form do those concepts take? And what is happening in our minds (and what has to happen in any mind) when we process those concepts? You talk of "patterns". What patterns, do you think, form the concept of "mind" that are engaged in thinking about sentence 2? Do you think that concepts like "mind" or "the US" might involve something much more complex still? "Models"? Or is that still way too simple? "Spaces"? Equally, of course, we can say that each *sentence* above is not just a "verbal composition" but a "conceptual composition" - and the question then is what form does such a composition take? Do sentences form, say, a "pattern of patterns", or something like a "picture"? Or a "blending of spaces" ? Or are concepts like *money*? YOU CAN BUY A LOT WITH A MILLION DOLLARS Does every concept function somewhat like money, e.g. "a million dollars" - something that we know can be cashed in, in an infinite variety of ways, but that we may not have to start "cashing in," (when processing), unless really called for - or only cash in so far? P.S. BTW this is the sort of psycho-philosophical discussion that I would see as central to AGI, but that most of you don't want to talk about? Matthias: What the computer makes with the data it receives depends on the information > of the transferred data, its internal algorithms and its internal data. > This is the same with humans and natural language. > > > Language understanding would be useful to teach the AGI with existing > knowledge already represented in natural language. But natural language > understanding suffers from the problem of ambiguities. These ambiguities > can > be solved by having similar knowledge as humans have. But then you have a > recursive problem because first there has to be solved the problem to > obtain > this knowledge. > > Nature solves this problem with embodiment. Different people make similar > experiences since the laws of nature do not depend on space and time. > Therefore we all can imagine a dog which is angry. Since we have > experienced > angry dogs but we haven't experienced angry trees we can resolve the > linguistic ambiguity of my former example and answer the question: Who was > angry? > > The way to obtain knowledge with embodiment is hard and long even in > virtual > worlds. > If the AGI shall understand natural language it would be necessary that it > makes similar experiences as humans make in the real world. But this would > need a very very sophisticated and rich virtual world. At least, there > have > to be angry dogs in the virtual world ;-) > > As I have already said I do not think the relation between utility of this > approach and the costs would be positive for first AGI. > ------------------------------------------- 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/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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
