I guess the thing the brain does, when it has the experience, is suggest avenues for exploration & you suggest a better way for a computer to do some version of that than I was thinking of. If your search engine was linked to a database of possible associations like you describe it could prompt a little pull down menu, as if a spell check prompt, of other word associations you might be looking for. It could get those associations from Wiki sources, dictionaries, encyclopedias and things. It might filter trade name publications for commercial word associations, and scientific papers for scientific ones, and the blogisphere for others, and perhaps give you a selection of alternate association groupings derived from each source.
That solves the problem that the computer has no way to have any of the ideas any word refers to for a person, or that it might suggest to a knowledgeable person, by intelligently focusing the computer's sources of information. In a sense it's the opposite of 'garbage in & filtered garbage out' you get 'wisdom in & filtered wisdom out'. So I'd put that in the 'very smart' category for the programmer, but not necessarily for the computer. Are you saying that the 'contextualize' function extracts the meanings of the words though, and looks for other associations with those meanings, or does it just reflect things like frequency and proximity of occurrence. I'd be very interested in what advanced 'contextualize' functions actually do, of course, in that some programmer may have been very smart in thinking of other tell-tale syntax structures in addition to proximity that a computer might discern, but I'm not aware of any that would correspond to 'meaning' yet. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:43 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. - on Earth Day > > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > How would a computer be able to suggest that > > when you search for 'Corian' you might actually be looking > for 'solid > > surface'. You might assume that the original discussion that > > associated the terms was not coded, and only the gradual > change in usage > > can be documented (e.g. as for punctuated equilibrium). I > can see some > > assistance, but not a lot, being provided by a computer > able to mark > > the growth dynamics of word uses, giving a specific date to > when a new > > phrase began to mature (first turning point ending the first growth > > period). The poor computer is just never going to be coding the > > 'idea' the terms convey for people, and won't it always be > making word > > associations a different way? > > > Wikipedia gives both definitions: solid surface and acrylic > polymer + > alumina trihydrate. > In R, for example: > > > dict <- new.env() > > dict[["corian"]] <- c(old="polymer",new="solid surface") > > contextualize <- function (entry,context) if (!is.na(context)) > entry[context] else entry > > meaningOf <- function (word,context=NA) { > contextualize(dict[[word]],context) } > > Then: > > > meaningOf("corian","old") > old > "polymer" > > meaningOf("corian","new") > new > "solid surface" > > meaningOf("corian") > old new > "polymer" "solid surface" > > So, given some context, it's a simple matter to grab a subset of > possible meanings or all of them. Computers are especially good at > combinatorics, and can report a confidence interval on any > conclusions > by logically extrapolating each outcome from ambiguity in > each word. > Some conclusions might defy common sense though, and that's where I'd > see something like Cyc coming in to play. A customer asked for > granite, or pointed at a polymer-like countertop that wasn't from > Dupont, and so the inference could be made that they really > meant "solid > surface". > > If you like redefine the contextualize function to be smart > by looking > at a dynamic description of the immediate environment, or index into > different dictionaries as a function of time or whatever. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
