On 4/28/07, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree with this two ways. First, it's fairly well accepted among mainstream AI researchers that full NL competence is "AI-complete", i.e. that human-level intelligence is a prerequisite for NL.
I don't think this is the operational sense of NLP as pursued by applying linguistic theories in narrow AI setting. (e.g. Dynamic Syntax, DRT, HPSG, ...)
Secondly, even the parsing part of NLP is part of a more general recursive sequence understander/generator, which is used for doing complex tasks with the hands (and the conjecture is that language bootstrapped itself on this capability).
I was writing in context of Mark Waser language-specific solutions (as I understand them), which if wished could be later reused in boarder contexts.
In other words, although there is enough special-purpose hardware in there to make it make sense to call language a "module", the full capability is so interwoven with general cognition that it can't be separated across a bottleneck. Josh
We stumble here on the meaning of capacity in this context. For example, a general GUI library is not expected to be generally intelligent. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
