Not to forget, languages A, B C and D from the previous post could all be different domains of the same language.
2017-04-20 20:53 GMT+02:00 Ivan Vodišek <ivan.mo...@gmail.com>: > Yes Linas, thank you for response. That is why there is no exclusively > definite interpretation of any expression. Expression "space" can be > translated to numerous meanings, with each meaning having its own, slightly > different interpretation in its own language. If we think about > "Multiverse", notion "space" could look differently in each Universe > sourcing from Multiverse (I hope my imagination doesn't spoil my > arguments). If we tie semantics not only to starting expression, but also > provide the second parameter (target), we have opportunity to define > semantics as a function of two parameters: source Universe and target > Universe. And even when we reach target Universe, there are options to > define ambiguities of a single target expression, I agree. > > So the question we have to ask when we seek for *a* semantics of an > expression should have the following form: What does expression X in > language A means in language B, C or, maybe, D? > > Ivan > > > 2017-04-20 20:30 GMT+02:00 Linas Vepstas <linasveps...@gmail.com>: > >> Ivan, I mostly agree (superficially) with most of what you are saying, >> but: I notice you avoid or over-simplify the issues mentioned in the >> wikipedia article "upper ontology". The points are two fold: different >> human beings have subtley different "upper ontologies", they tend to change >> over time, they are often logically inconsistent, and they are strongly >> tied to mood, alertness, voluability, life-experiences, culture, language. >> The way that Russians, Americans and Chinese think about "outer space" is >> different: not only is there no direct word-for-word translation for this >> concept, but its worse: different people put different emphasis on what is >> important about space, what its important defining characteristics are. >> For some people, "space is infinite", for other people, "space is where >> star trek happens", for others still "space is boring, inner space is what >> we should explore". So the "meaning" of the word "space" depends on the >> individual, and on their identity, their "value system" (what they consider >> to be important) and their *political* perspective. Overtly political, >> even: "space should be conquered, and the conqueror gets to put their >> national flag on it, and claim all economic extractive rights". So what is >> "space", really? >> >> --linas >> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ivan Vodišek <ivan.mo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all :) >>> >>> May I say a few words about semantics? In my work on describing >>> knowledge, I've concluded that a semantics (meaning) of an expression is >>> merely an abstract concept of thought that relates the expression to its >>> interpretation in another (or the same) language for which we already know >>> its interpretation. Let's say we have unknown language A and already known >>> language B in which the language A can be expressed. To know semantics of >>> our language A (in the terms of B) is to know how to translate language A >>> to language B, under assumption that we already know semantics of B. >>> >>> If we think about it in a natural way, how do we explain to someone a >>> meaning of some expression? What we do in this situation is that we >>> actually translate the expression unknown to that person to a form that is >>> known by that person. For example, how do we explain in known language what >>> some word from another language means? We simply show how to translate it. >>> As simple as that. >>> >>> So, one might pose a question: "If semantics are all relative to the >>> next member in the chain, what are semantics of the ending chain member?" >>> On this thought, all I have right now are indices that the ending chain >>> member is the Universe itself. If this is true, then every conceivable >>> thought has its interpretation as an system inside Universe, with all of >>> its static or dynamic states. Once we can picture out how to translate an >>> expression to an Universe system, we can say that we know semantics of that >>> expression. And the meaning of the Universe system itself? Sorry, don't ask >>> me, I didn't create it, the thing is rolling on on its own :) >>> >>> Moving further with a train of thought, how do we stand with logic >>> conclusions? We translate a set of logic formulas to another new sets of >>> logic formulas, which could be interpreted as like we give meanings to >>> starting logic formulas. Take a look at this sentence: If it rains, it >>> means that streets are wet. We used the word "means". So, with a proper set >>> of translation rules, we can give meanings to languages, we can draw >>> logical conclusions, and, from what I've seen so far in my research, we can >>> build whole imaginary systems that can emulate real Universe systems. >>> Shortly, a set of translation rules can be seen as a knowledge base about >>> some situation that is possible to exist inside the Universe. >>> >>> Not to stay just on words, I develop a programming language whose >>> mandatory function is to make easier development at the field of artificial >>> intelligence. As it is all about states in the Universe, and the real life >>> situations are about those states, that language could be used for >>> programming regular applications as well. The language is working >>> embodiment of an universal rewrite system >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting> and has some cute properties, >>> complete enough for programming and concluding new knowledge, being system >>> transformation, abduction, deduction or induction. I'll try to inform >>> Opencog community about the progress of my work because I believe that AGI >>> world could benefit from such an investigation in a field of representing >>> knowledge. I hope, at least that the language would be an inspiration for a >>> lucid AGI developer. >>> >>> - ivan - >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-04-20 18:19 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gross <gross...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Hi Linas, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your responses, and the pointer. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that your example further pin-points my question: >>>> >>>> A quasi-linear walk through a semantic network is essentially a >>>> constructed structure (or path) through the use of grammar, to get at a >>>> possible reading of a sentence that would make sense to a person within a >>>> "semantic space", without however capturing meaning per-se. A lexicon, say, >>>> "merely' captures the rules of constructions of particular given verbs and >>>> nouns *based* on their human interpreted meaning). >>>> >>>> Hence, grammar's purpose seems to really "only" to construct a >>>> meanginful path rather than tell us what the meaning of the knowledge >>>> embodied in that path is. The latter seems to require another "kind" of >>>> semantics/meaning (and perhaps some might say that there are turtles all >>>> the way down -- or at least until some grounding). >>>> >>>> does my intuition make sense, >>>> >>>> thank you, >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 20 April 2017 16:59:38 UTC+3, linas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Semantics and syntax are two different things. Syntax allows you to >>>>> parse sentences. Semantics is more about how concepts inter-relate to each >>>>> other. -- a network. A sentence tends to be a quasi-linearized walk >>>>> through such a network. For example, take a look at the "deep" and the >>>>> "surface" structures in meaning-text theory. From there, one asks "what >>>>> kind of speech acts are there?" and "why do people talk?" and this is >>>>> would be the "next level", beyond the homework exercise I mentioned in the >>>>> previous email. >>>>> >>>>> --linas >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Gross <gros...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your response. I started reading the paper and was >>>>>> wondering if you could help me clarify a confusion i apparently have when >>>>>> it comes to the meaning of meaning: >>>>>> >>>>>> How is linguistic meaning connected to human embodied meaning that we >>>>>> would call human (or AGI) understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> Linguistic meaning seems to be about the linguistic meta-language >>>>>> that shows how a human would parse a sentence unambiguously, so that a >>>>>> human can, in principle, understand the meaning of a sentence, although, >>>>>> what is, say, instructed by a sentence, as understood by a human seems >>>>>> not >>>>>> captured, but would require more machinery. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this sense, linguistic machinery seems to embody (as a theory of >>>>>> mind) how humans understand (in a cognitive economical manner), rather >>>>>> than >>>>>> what humans understand --at least this is what confuses me ... >>>>>> >>>>>> any thought would be much appreciated ... >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Daniel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 09:16:42 UTC+3, Ben Goertzel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a probabilistic logic engine (PLN) which works on >>>>>>> (optionally >>>>>>> probabilistically labeled) logic expressions.... This logic engine >>>>>>> can also help with extracting semantic information from natural >>>>>>> language or perceptual observations. However, it's best used >>>>>>> together >>>>>>> with other methods that carry out "lower levels" of processing in >>>>>>> feedback and cooperation with it... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of vision, Ralf Mayet is leading an effort to use a >>>>>>> modified InfoGAN deep NN to extract semantic information from >>>>>>> images/videos/sounds to pass into PLN, the Pattern Miner, and so >>>>>>> forth >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of textual language, Linas is leading an effort to >>>>>>> extract >>>>>>> a first pass of semantic and syntactic information from unannotated >>>>>>> text corpora via this general approach >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3372 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same approach should work when non-textual groundings are >>>>>>> included >>>>>>> in the corpus, or when the learning is real-time experiential rather >>>>>>> than batch-based.... but there's plenty of nitty-gritty work here... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ben goertzel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Gross <gros...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > Hi Linas, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > How do you propose to learn an ontology from the data -- also, >>>>>>> what purpose >>>>>>> > would, in your opinion, the learned ontology serve. Or stated >>>>>>> differently, >>>>>>> > in what way are you thinking to engender higher-level cognitive >>>>>>> capabilities >>>>>>> > via machine learned bundled neuron (and implicit ontologies, >>>>>>> perhaps). >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > thank you, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Daniel >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 03:40:47 UTC+3, linas wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Alex <alexand...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Maybe we can solve the problem about modelling classes (and >>>>>>> using OO and >>>>>>> >>> UML notions for knowledge representation) with the following >>>>>>> (pseudo)code >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> - We can define ConceptNode "Object", that consists from the set >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> >>> properties and functions >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> - We can require that any class e.g. Invoice is the inherited >>>>>>> from the >>>>>>> >>> Object: >>>>>>> >>> IntensionalInheritanceLink >>>>>>> >>> Invoice >>>>>>> >>> Object >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> - We can require that any more specifica class, e.g. VATInvoice >>>>>>> is the >>>>>>> >>> inherited from the more general class: >>>>>>> >>> IntensionalInheritanceLink >>>>>>> >>> VATInvoice >>>>>>> >>> Invoice >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> - We can require that any instance is inherited from the >>>>>>> concrete class: >>>>>>> >>> ExtensionalInheritanceLinks >>>>>>> >>> invoice_no_2314 >>>>>>> >>> VATInvoice >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> If you wish, you can do stuff like that. opencog per se is >>>>>>> agnostic about >>>>>>> >> how you do this, you can do it however you want. The proper way >>>>>>> to do this >>>>>>> >> is discussed in many places; for example here: >>>>>>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I'm not particularly excited about building ontologies by hand, >>>>>>> its much >>>>>>> >> more interesting (to me) to understand how they can be learned >>>>>>> >> automatically, from raw data. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> But I don't know yet what can and what can not be the parent for >>>>>>> >>> extensional and intensional inheritance. Can an entity be >>>>>>> extensionally >>>>>>> >>> inherited from the more complex object or it can be >>>>>>> extensionally inherited >>>>>>> >>> from empty set-placeholder only. When we introduce notion of >>>>>>> set, then the >>>>>>> >>> futher question always arise - does OpenCog make distinction >>>>>>> between sets >>>>>>> >>> and proper classes? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Why? This "distinction" only matters if you want to implement set >>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>> >> My pre-emptive strike to halt this train of thought is this: Why >>>>>>> would you >>>>>>> >> want to implement set theory, instead of, say, model theory or >>>>>>> universal >>>>>>> >> algebra, or category theory, or topos theory? why the heck would >>>>>>> >> distinguishing a set-theoretical-set from a >>>>>>> set-theoretical-proper-class >>>>>>> >> matter? (which oh by the way is similar but not the same thing as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> >> category-theoretic-proper-class...) >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> You've got multiple ideas going here, at once: the best way to >>>>>>> hand-craft >>>>>>> >> some ontology; the best theoretical framework to do it in; the >>>>>>> philosophy of >>>>>>> >> knowledge representation in general... and, my personal favorite: >>>>>>> how do I >>>>>>> >> get the machine to do this automatically, without manual >>>>>>> intervention? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> There is second problem as well - there is only one - mixed >>>>>>> >>> InheritanceLink. One can use SubsetLink for the extensional >>>>>>> inheritance >>>>>>> >>> (still it feels strange), but there is certainly necessary >>>>>>> syntactic sugar >>>>>>> >>> for intensional inheritance, because it is hard to write and >>>>>>> read SubsetLink >>>>>>> >>> of property sets again and again >>>>>>> >>> (http://wiki.opencog.org/w/InheritanceLink). >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> If the machine has learned an ontology with a million subset >>>>>>> links in it, >>>>>>> >> no human being is ever going to read or want to read that >>>>>>> network. It'll be >>>>>>> >> like looking at a bundle of neurons: the best you can do is say >>>>>>> "oh wow, a >>>>>>> >> bundle of neurons!" >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> --linas >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>> Google Groups >>>>>>> >>> "opencog" group. >>>>>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >>>>>>> it, send an >>>>>>> >>> email to opencog+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/a6d0102e-9ca1-4204 >>>>>>> -8dd4-75a9fb2ec06b%40googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups >>>>>>> > "opencog" group. >>>>>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an >>>>>>> > email to opencog+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/01d0f8ad-2c6c-44af >>>>>>> -9e46-fc71e2f2559f%40googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>>>>>> http://goertzel.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the >>>>>>> boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "opencog" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >>>> gid/opencog/9ec7d280-dcc6-44f1-b5ae-8b9731d280a0%40googlegroups.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/9ec7d280-dcc6-44f1-b5ae-8b9731d280a0%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "opencog" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >>> gid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6Utsgi8vebXraPOCv3eZtf1%3DAUvmDB6HTnt2Oy >>> TbCJ0Lw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6Utsgi8vebXraPOCv3eZtf1%3DAUvmDB6HTnt2OyTbCJ0Lw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "opencog" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >> gid/opencog/CAHrUA37KgJ4kAnAn85fhikh4x2nTeDcHrP9wF0TYSKu4m6Y >> SZg%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA37KgJ4kAnAn85fhikh4x2nTeDcHrP9wF0TYSKu4m6YSZg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6W0Gwv6CFGNzF8fE7zEZsqPXZCGOT05EaUzxn%3DpmZ%3D3uQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
