First of all, my example of a couple of sentences from the Wikipedia article may have been a little biased because the sentences were introductory. But, perhaps another example that uses that example may better illustrate my point. I believe that the analysis of the sentences that I made in that previous example is far more significant to the problem we are trying to solve then an analysis of semiotics.
Now do you agree with me? Because if you don't then you don't think my example which referred to my previous example where I discussed the fluffiness of a couple of sentences about semiotics is significant. The thing is, if you do not think that my comment (that an analysis of sentences is more relevant to the thing we are most interested in than will be found in a discussion of semiotics) then the sign that I made trying to direct your attention to my initial analysis of the sentences did not adequately capture the significance of what I was saying. And I know perfectly well that you are yet to be convinced. In order to get my point across I am going to have 'point' to the significance of the analysis of simple sentences again in order to stress the point. And I will have to 'point' out that the belief that there is some fundamental abstraction which will make all the difference in creating an effective AGI program is reasonable only when you realize that any discussion may generate an important abstraction. In other words, the abstraction of semiotics, while important in it's simplest form, is pretty shallow in its more elaborated form. I am contrasting the superficiality of the elaboration of semiotics against the untapped potential of the analysis simple sentences to discover something more about how language works (in relation to our interest in AGI). The problem, as I see it, is that semiotics did not work. Formal computational analysis of syntax did not work. Iconic representations and symbol grounding did not work. Weighted reasoning did not work. There is something that we have to discover and the ecstasy of letting every grain of semiotics slowly pass through your hands will not lead to that discovery. Analyzing simple sentences, I am saying, has a better chance to leading to something interesting than a discussion of semiotics. Now, you may still disagree with me, but if you were willing to carefully read what I wrote you will have a much better idea of what I am saying. So then you might say that my comments contained multiple 'signs' in order to direct your attention to my illustration of my point of view, but then you would just be replacing the analysis of how sentences work with a shallow assertion that the sentences just contained signs. Even if they did (and I do not deny the basic idea that I was trying to 'point' something out to you) that kind of search for the semiotics of language is not a very vivid substitute for a more lively analysis of meaning. There has clearly been something missing in the study of concepts, and I believe that the study of language, as it directly might be related to AGI, is a good way to discover it. The study of Semiotics is not. Jim On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>wrote: > The hard parts are here... > > > - The plant, insect, or animal with the need to communicate (e.g., to > recognise an object of food) will *know* what needs to be *said* and > assess the best means of *saying* it (e.g., starting a searching > behaviour); > > > Step 1. (Speaker Mode) The agent will know what needs to be said and > figure out a plan for saying it. > > > - This information will then be > encoded<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encode_%28Semiotics%29> and > relevant muscle groups will effect transmission — although to some extent > intentional in the human, the actual movements of the body are autonomic, > i.e. the individual is not aware of moving individual muscles, but achieves > the desired result by an act of will (see H. L. A. > Hart<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._A._Hart> on > the nature of an action<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_action> > ); > > > Step 2. (Speaker Mode) Encode the intent into signs that can be sent to > actuators > > > > - The audience filters ambient data and perceives the uttered code as > a grouping of signs; > > > Step 3. (Hearer Mode) Receive percepts and group into signs. > > > - The audience then interprets the signs (sometimes termed > decoding<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decode_%28Semiotics%29>) > to attribute meaning. This involves matching the signs received against > existing patterns and their meanings held in memory (i.e. it is learned and > understood within the community<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community>). > In plants, insects and animals, the results of a successful interpretation > will be an observable response to the stimuli perceived. > > > Step 4. (Hearer Mode) Decode the signs into meaning by "matching signs > to" (or activating) existing concepts. > > > Your thoughts? > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] Semiosis > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 21:03:59 -0700 > > > So my interpretation of Semiosis is the entire process sign decoding to > meaning, > and then encoding meaning into signs. This process involves the sign > parsing > problem (where we start with percepts, then detect features, then detect > signs, > then activate concepts) and sign generation problem (where we start with > activated concepts, then serialize them into signs, then send motor > commands > to actuators to render the signs). > > Jim, how can we both be so far apart on our interpretations of Semiosis? > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:22:39 -0400 > Subject: Re: [agi] Semiosis > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > It's well written nonsense. There is nothing in that paragraph on > semiosis which actually says something that is relevant to AGI. > Now someone might criticize much of what you or I might say the same way. > But that is irrelevant. Read the paragraph a little more carefully. Can > you find anything in it, other than Peirce's basic idea of the sign, that > we might actually use? Here, look at these sentences: > > "For humans, semiosis is an aspect of the wider systems of social > interaction in which information is exchanged. It can result in particular > types of social encounter, but the process itself can be constrained by > social conventions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_%28norm%29> such > as propriety, privacy, and disclosure." > > It starts by mentioning semoisis but it really is about the wider systems > of social interactions. If you were to ask how the wider systems of social > conventions such as propriety, privacy, and disclosure affects language I > would doubt if it would lead to anything but it would be a whole lot more > substantial then talking about semoisis. It's nonsense writing. > > Look, I thought I had a great insight about conceptual > structural integration the other day and one day I might be able to do > something with it. But right now it is too plain because it is just about > trying to figure out how we talk about things. So I have a good start on > an idea but I don't have anything about how an effective structural complex > might be chosen out of all the possibilities that could be considered. So > I don't have a compelling conjecture about how we might cut through the > complications and use structural integration to create AGI. But although my > idea about conceptual structural integration is only at the most primitive > level of thought right now, the paragraph on semiosis that you mentioned > doesn't even get that far. Perhaps I am only able to see it from my narrow > vantage of my interest in AGI, but everything I have ever read about > semiosis looks a lot like fluff to me. > Jim > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-5cfde295> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *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
