On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > For instance, when it is discovered that probabilistic reasoning isn't > quite good enough for advanced nlp, many hopefuls will rediscover the > creative 'solution' of using orthogonal multidimensional 'measures' of > semantic distance. Instead of following their intuition and coming up > with ways to make the reasoning seem more natural, they first turn > toward a more fanciful method by which they try to force the corpus of > natural language to conform to their previously decision to use a > simple metric. > > My recommendation would be to first try to begin thinking about how > natural reasoning might be better structured to solve those problems > before you start distorting the data. > > For an example, reasons are often used in natural reasoning. A reason > can be good or bad. A reason can provide causal information about the > reasoning but even a good reason may only shed light on information > incidental to the reasoning. The value of a reason can be relative to > both the reasoning and the nature of the supplied reason itself. My > point here is that the relation of reason to reasoning is significant > (especially when they work) although it can be very complicated. But > even though the use of a reason is not simple, notice how natural and > familiar it seems.
I realized after I wrote this that the invented metric of semantic distance can be used to 'solve' a semantic problem using mathematical means. In my suggestion that more highly structured methods of reasoning should be considered before distorting the data with some artifice I pointed out that reasons that are naturally used in decision making could be included in the structure of reasoning . But the problem is, of course, that examining the reasons for a conclusion does not immediately -solve- the programming problem the way numerical metrics and mathematical methods can. Ok, but you can still create artificial methods to test structural reasoning if you are eager to start programming. I am going to try this out because I believe that a somewhat extensible GOFAI model can be derived from a use of structured reasoning (and some other ideas I have) even though I would have to first supply simplistic 'solutions' for the program to use. I am saying that before you start creating elaborate artifices to jump start your project you should first use your intuition to see if more natural ways of dealing with the problem exist. This might not make the problem look easier. But even though I would have to create some simplistic solutions for my first model, I believe that the concept of more highly structured reasoning should help me keep these artifices to a minimum. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
