So anyway, I think that linguistics has to be involved with the progressive determination of referents and how these referents can be used to define the meaning of the other parts of an expression. This is so open that formal linguistics may not be able to define this well but it can be defined in general ways or for general common meanings. Because we can provide encodings that, in turn, means that we can use terms in a specialized way. (Like when I said that I use the term referent to refer to a real world object or a real world event, or to a mental object or mental event). People in these groups sometimes become annoyed because we can't figure out what they are talking about even though they have talked about their ideas numerous times. Part of the problem is that we can't recall all the specialized definitions that individuals use. I believe that this problem is aggravated because specialization is an important part of communicating and even the best of writers rely on this even when they are using conventional terminology.
So I think that the major obstacle confronting AGI linguistics right now is the discovery of referents. Yes this could sometimes be alleviated with multi-modal sensors, but there is no evidence that multi-modal sensory methods that would allow an object to be seen and heard or sensed in other ways would resolve this problem of deducing what is being referred to. It is quite possible that the progressive discovery of referents is just a search and compare operation which seems to be major slowdown in computer science today. Jim Bromer On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a little difficult for me to answer this question so I will start > with one part before I forget. I had to look up sign (linguistics) and > agent (linguistics) to get some idea about what he was talking about. I > would say that my approach is (or would be/will be) both. In reading about > signs I noticed that the idea of the referent is considered to be distinct > from the idea of the signified. When I refer to a referent I am referring > to a real world thing or event or a mental idea. I believe that the one > thing that is missing in modern AI Linguistics is a way to follow what is > being referred to. It probably is just too complicated for a computer > program to figure out efficiently. My gmail is malfunctioning so I will > try to continue this later. > Jim Bromer > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Steve and Jim, >> >> Kindly respond... >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:34:07 +0100 >> Subject: Re: FW: [agi] Steve's placement/payload theory of language >> >> From: Roland Hausser >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Hello Michael, >> >> Thank you very much for your email. I read >> >> the comments by Jim Bromer and Steve Richfield >> with great interest. They lead me to the >> following questions: >> >> * Are their respective approaches sign-oriented >> or agent-oriented? >> >> * What do they think about defining basic concepts >> as types of the recognition and action procedures >> of an agent? >> >> * How about reusing these basic concepts as the >> literal meanings of a language? >> >> Happy Easter to you! >> >> Looking forward to be reading from you, >> >> Best regards, >> >> Roland Hausser >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | >> 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-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
