A concept may be defined by a word, a group of words, a sentence or a group of sentences (or even a fragment of a word). A category that such a concept might be said to belong to is also a concept. So the only distinction between a link (or an edge) and a node of a semantic network is relative to some purpose of relation or categorization (or description).
Mike refuses to try to understand what I am saying because he would have to give up his sense of a superior point of view in order to understand it. Yes you have a more enlightened view point when it comes to trying to understand ideas that other people are trying to explain. But you resist 'understanding' what I am saying because it does not easily fall into an orderly point system that seems like it is immediately programmable. So you understand the words that I am using but I think you are simply refusing to understand the implications of those words because it is more unwieldy then your current beliefs. Jim Bromer On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> wrote: > I would love to know where you're going with this. I can see you have an > interesting insight. I don't think it's my faculties at fault, nor is it > your communication skills. Communicating concepts at this level of > abstraction is inherently difficult. I'm just looking for a clear, > detailed explanation. > > I find it a little funny that you've grouped me in with Mike, considering > he is nay-saying the possibility while I am busy building it, albeit not > according to your liking, apparently. Also unlike Mike, I'm quite willing > (eager!) to listen to other views. I recently said on this list that I like > to learn about unfamiliar, orthogonal approaches because the more I learn > about them, the more robust my design becomes. > > Maybe a few emails talking at a high level simply aren't enough for either > of us to fully communicate our ideas. Obviously we've both put years into > formulating our views, and to think that we can communicate the sum total > of those insights in such a short time is pretty ambitious. I get the > feeling you and I are mostly on the same page, unlike many of the others on > this list, but that I haven't convinced you of it yet because I've told you > precious little about the actual design of my system and I've made some > simplifications for the purpose of clarity. > > I've considered phrases as variables already, and they are built into my > system. However, "variable" is an oversimplificiation, because there is a > degree of uncertainty involved in anaphora resolution. My system tracks > multiple "values" for a "bound" phrase (think of a mathematical constant), > keeping a certainty level for each. This means it can handle puns, not just > single meanings. This is how non-quantifying pronouns and determiners are > handled. On the other hand, quantifiers are going to be treated more like > true variables, where an entire compound phrase or clause can match against > objects and events recorded in the system's perceptual memory, or even > other phrases or clauses, generating new information about the matched > entities in the form of new phrases/clauses describing them. This part has > not yet been implemented and is the next thing on my list. > > So what do you mean by using a sentence fragment as a category, if not > this? Can you give a (relatively) concrete example? > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote >> As for recognizing a definite set of prepositions, you act as though I >> claimed the same preposition is treated the same way, regardless of >> context. If "in" means something different when talking about sets >> (containership, as in "it's in the box") than it does when talking about >> money (possession, as in "we're in the money") >> >> ------------------------ >> I said that word-concepts can be used in different ways in different >> contexts and you understood that. >> I also was saying that word-concepts, sentence fragments, sentences >> and collections of sentences and or sentence fragments can be used as >> categories or categorical definitions and you weren't sure about what I was >> saying. >> I said that while it is probably true that there are only a few words >> which are grammatical prepositions, there are uncountable numbers of >> sentences or sentence fragments from which relative positions might be >> inferred and you did not react to it. >> Finally I've been pointing out that a word-phrase or sentence fragments >> or sentences or concepts can be used as variable-like things and again you >> did not react to it - as if you are not ready to deal with the implications. >> >> I am not saying that you don't understand what I am saying only that you >> choose not to go there for some reason. You reacted to one thing that I >> have been saying but you don't seem to get the central things. You are not >> reacting to the same pieces of information that Mike Tintner is not >> reacting to. >> >> Jim Bromer >> > ------------------------------------------- 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
