Very interesting stuff! Thank you! The more varied and orthogonal the insights my system incorporates, the more robust it becomes.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > In addition to Schank and the Yale School, be sure to look at Roland > Hausser and Database Semantics as well. > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:20:05 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Superficiality Produces Misunderstanding - Not Good > Enough > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > > Aaron Hosford wrote: > I get the impression that you're saying (both here & in your previous > emails on Algorithmic Synthesis) that claiming two things are associated > isn't enough -- that the *kind* of association is important too. > > -Yes I do feel that way although I probably wasn't thinking of that when I > wrote my message. An association may belong to many categories of a > *kind*. This is important because we can usually abstract or generalize > from an 'idea' or 'ideas' in many different ways and these different > 'kinds' of abstractions are things that can become concepts of their own > (referring to the nature of the abstraction). > Aaron Hosford wrote: > Roger Schank has provided quite a bit of inspiration to me, based on how > he represents meaning as semantic links connecting basic concepts together. > From the natural language perspective, it is relatively easy to see how > this can be implemented. I'm not alone in having successfully built a > parser that extracts a semantic network from a sentence which represents > that sentence's meaning with a fair degree of accuracy. > > -I really liked Schank's work as well. I think that old world semantic > networks simplified the potential for meaning too much. So while you might > get closer to a single constrained meaning of a sentence, you would also > lose many of the undertones, highlights and colors of the sentence that can > help to make the sentence meaningful. So here it is again, it is not > enough to take the shallow level of meaning that might be derived from > a tightly constraining analysis of the superficial sentence. You have to > be looking for other kinds of meanings to see if the words of the sentence > (or 'ideas' of the sentences) can be better interpreted in other ways. > > I will have more to say about this. > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
