A relatively concrete categorical definition of a concept might be a very short "story" denoting the distinction between two or more cases of a kind of thing. Although the distinction might be made briefer, that does not mean that it would be made better by such a device. Jim Bromer
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
