“Decoding” is normally unscrambling a code into another language that it represents. That’s more or less the sense in which it is used in computer science.
But in sign language there is no decoding. The signs are *mapped* onto the actions they represent – and may in part be the same as those actions – as in the signs for eating. Direct mapping of signs onto objects isn’t something that computers can yet handle. Robots, I think, will be able to. From: Piaget Modeler Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 10:08 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic I shouldn't be doing this: Coding = performing actions to make the sign (whether orally, on paper, or gesturally) Decoding = recognizing the sign (via audition, or vision). What is there to argue with. AGI-ers have already covered sign language, Mike Tinter. Your problem is a matter of ego, not of reason. You need to be able to admit that you are wrong sometimes. It may help your interpersonal relationships. If you care about such things. ~PM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:54:55 -0800 "I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me." ~ Ralph Ellison on the connection between Sign Language and Decoding and Computational Linguistics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:46:31 -0800 A word to the wise is sufficient. ~PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:11:15 +0000 PM:Need I say more? Yeah, What has sign language got to do with decoding and computational linguistics? For example, the sign[s] for eating involving bringing fingers to mouth? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Piaget Modeler Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:26 PM To: AGI Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic In the case of Helen Keller, the language output interface was her hands, and the language input interface was also her hands. Need I say more? ~PM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:06:21 -0800 In the case of Capoeira, the language output and interface is the entire human body, and the input interface is the eyes. In the case of Jiu-Jitsu, the language output interface is the entire human body, and the input interface is the entire human body, including the eyes. Both of these sports have a lexicon which is communicated from instructors to students. ~PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] The road to language learning is iconic Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:53:53 -0800 Roland Hausser IS talking about the same thing. In the case of American Sign Languae (ASL) the language output interface is your hands (and arms). The language input interface is your eyes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM, I’m talking about the sign language/gestural origins – signs made by hands predominantly – which apes are also capable of. Unless I missed something, Hausser is talking about signs in the broader semiotic sense and is irrelevant here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I should add that I am just getting into reading about the argument for the origins of language in sign language which is a strong one and very extensively argued and debated – and I suspect like much other crucial science, largely unknown to AGI-ers." ~ Mike Tinter That has already been addressed. You should read Roland Hausser's work: "A natural language manifests itself in the form of signs, the structures of which have evolved as conventions within a language community. Produced by cognitive agents in the speaker mode and interpreted by cognitive agents in the hearer mode these signs are used for the transfer of content from the speaker to the hearer. Depending upon whether the scientific analysis concentrates on the isolated signs or the communicating agents, we may distinguish between sign-oriented and agent-oriented approaches. "Sign oriented approaches like Generative Grammar, Truth-Conditional Semantics, and Text Linguistics analyze expressions of natural language as objects, fixed on paper, magnetic tape, or by electronic means. They abstract away from the aspect of communication and therefore are neither intended nor suitable to model the speaker and the hearer mode. Instead linguistic examples isolated from the communicating agents are analyzed as hierarchical structures which are formally based on the principle of possible substitutions. "The agent-oriented approach of Database Semantics, in contrast, analyzes signs as the result of the speake'rs language production and as the starting point of the hearer's language interpretation. Inclusion of the agents' production and interpretation procedures requires a time linear analysis which is formally based on the principle of possible continuations. "The goal of Database semantics is a theory of natural language communication which is complete with respect to function and data coverage, of low mathematical complexity, and is suitable for an efficient implementation on the computer. The central question of Database Semantics is: "How does communicating with Natural Language work? "In the most simple form this question is answered as follows. "Natural language communication takes place between cognitive agents. They have real bodies "out there" in the world with external interfaces for nonverbal recognition and action at the context level, and verbal recognition and action at the language level. Each agent contains a database in which contents are stored. These contents consist of the agent's knowledge its memories, current recognition, intentions, plans, etc. "The cognitive agents can switch between the speaker and hearer mode (turn taking). In a communication procedure, an agent in the speaker mode codes content from its database into signs of language which are realized externally by the language output interface. These signs are recognized by another agent in the hearer mode via the language input interface, their content is decoded and is then stored in the second agent's database. This procedure is successful if the content coded by the speaker is decoded and stored equivalently by the hearer." ~Roland Hausser, A Computational Model of Natural Language Communication: Interpretation, Inference, and Production in Database Semantics (pp. 9, 10). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
