Helen Keller must have had a tough time existing without words. According to you she didn't know the shape of the chairs she sat on. She had no words.
What are these commonsense rules in words that you learned? That apply to the sentences I gave? Or to elephants and chairs? Where did you get the idea that the elephant is a "multi-ton quadruped"? Which book did you actually read those words in? Where did the sentence: "Something large and heavy will not fit correctly into something small not built to carry that much weight" come from? And what if I say to you: "sorry but the elephant did sit on the chair" - how would you know that I could be right? (You don't see the images/ graphics underlying words, because as you try to understand how you understand sentences, you're supplying further sentences of analysis at great speed. But if you try to trace where those sentences came from - the rules you're referring to above - you'll find there are except in rare cases no such rules. You've actually made them up - and your brain did that for you by using its imagination. It's only by imagination that you can work out which of thousands of animals can or can't sit in a given chair. As I said, there are no rules of combination that cover most of the interactions between things described in the millions or however many sentences you read. That's why pure language translation hasn't worked.). ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Miller To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:18 AM Subject: RE: [agi] rule-based NL system I'll have to say my objection stands. Because the point is that blind people learn about an object and infer it's shape from words and description of the object without ever seeing them. An intelligent AI will do so in the same way. After the blind learns about an object by reading in braille or having it described to them they can then postulate a mental image of it. The intelligence had to precede the mental image for them to have had the object described to them in enough detail to have made an image in their minds of it. And given the sentence, The elephant sat in the chair. It is not necessary to know what an elephant or a chair looks like if one knows from their description that elephants are multi-ton quadrapeds and chairs are smallish pieces of furniture sized for human beings. And the rule that Something large and heavy will not fit correctly into something small not built to carry that much weight. The image pops into your mind because those memories of elephants and chairs are keyed to those terms. But the images are not necessary to reason about the entities. The picture is not what makes you realize the sentence is probably nonsensical it is the commonsense rules and knowledge that you have learned and are bringing to bear on the sentence almost subconciously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:43 PM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system Classic objection. The answer is that blind people can draw - reasonably faithful outline objects. Experimentally tested. Their brains like all our brains form graphic outlines of objects and fit them accordingly to create scenes to test the sense of sentences. Worms do it too. They are blind, But if you go back to the Darwin passage I quoted, you will see that they can fill their burrows with all manner of differently shaped objects by touch. The senses are interdependent. We work by COMMON sense. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Miller To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:36 PM Subject: RE: [agi] rule-based NL system Are you saying then that blind people can not make sense of language because they lack the capacity to imagine images having never seen them before? Or that blind people could not understand or would not view these these as equally strange as a sighted person? "The man climbed the penny" "The mat sat on the cat" "The teapot broke the bull" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:42 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system Disagree. The brain ALWAYS tries to make sense of language - convert it into images and graphics. I see no area of language comprehension where this doesn't apply. I was just reading a thread re the Symbol gorund P on another group - & I think what's fooling people into thinking purely linguistic comprehension is possible is the "Dictionary Fallacy". They think the meaning of a sentence can be derived by looking up meanings word by word in a dictionary (real or in their mind). But to understand sentences you have to understand how the words FIT TOGETHER. There are no rules in any dictionary that tell you what words fit together. How do you know that the sentences: "The man climbed the penny" "The mat sat on the cat" "The teapot broke the bull" are probably nonsense (but not necessarily)? The brain understands these and all sentences by converting them into composite pictures. It may and does use other methods as well but "making sense"/ "getting the picture"/ "seeing what you're talking about" are fundamental. Understanding depends on "imagination", (in the literal sense of manipulating images). It is by testing these derived pictures against its visual (& sensory) models and "visual logic" of things that the brain understands both what they are referring to and whether they make sense (in the 2nd meaning of that term - are realistic). The brain uses a picture tree, as we discussed earlier, Ben, and that picture tree is not only how the brain understands, but also the source of its adaptivity.Lot more to say about this.. but as you see I have a very hard line here, and yours seems to be considerably softer, and I'm interested in understanding that. ----- Original Message ----- From: Benjamin Goertzel To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system I agree about developmental language learning combined with automated learning of grammar rules being the right approach to NLP. In fact, my first wife did her PhD work on this topic in 1994, at Waikato University in Hamilton New Zealand. She got frustrated and quite before finishing her degree, but her program (which I helped with) inferred some nifty grammatical rules from a bunch of really simple children's books, and then used them as a seed for learning more complex grammatical rules from slightly more complex children's books. This work was never published (like at least 80% of my work, because writing things up for publication is boring and sometimes takes more time than doing the work...). However, a notable thing we found during that research was that nearly all children's books, and children's spoken language (e.g. from the CHILDES corpus of childrens spoken language), make copious and constant reference to PICTURES (in the book case) or objects in the physical surround (in the spoken language case). In other words: I became convinced that in the developmental approach, if you want to take the human child language learning metaphor at all seriously, you need to go beyond pure language learning and take an experientially grounded approach. Of course, this doesn't rule out the potential viability of pursuing developmental approaches that **don't** take the human child language learning metaphor at all seriously ;-) But it seems pretty clear that, in the human case, experiential grounding plays a rather huge role in helping small children learn the rules of language... -- Ben G On 4/28/07, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think YKY is right on this one. There was a Dave Barry column about going to the movies with kids in which a 40-foot image of a handgun appears on the screen, at which point every mother in the theater turns to her kid and says, "Oh look, he's got a GUN!" Communication in natural language is extremely compressed. It's a code that expresses the *difference* between the speaker's and the hearer's states of knowledge, not a full readout of the meaning. (this is why misunderstanding is so common, as witness the "intelligence" discussion here) Even a theoretical Solomonoff/Hutter AI would flounder if given a completely compressed bit-stream: it would be completely random, incompressible and unpredictable like Chaitin's Omega number. Language is a lot closer to this than is the sensory input stream of a kid. There's a quote widely attributed to a "William Martin" (anybody know who he is?): "You can't learn anything unless you almost know it already." In general, the hearer needs a world model almost the same as the speaker's. Let's call this "Winograd's Theory of Understanding": that having a model capable of simulating the domain of discourse is necessary and sufficient for understanding discourse about it. (NB: (a) there are different levels of completeness and accuracy for simulations and also for understanding; (b) "symbol grounding" in the sense of associations to physical sensory/motor signals is *not necessary*.) I find SHRDLU and its intellectual descencents a convincing demonstration of WTU. This implies that understanding an NL sentence consists not only in parsing it into an internal representation and stashing it somewhere, but, if it's something you didn't already know, modifying and augmenting the mechanism of your world model to reflect the new knowledge in future simulations. In other words, building a working mechanism and integrating it into an existing vast, complex machine. Josh On Saturday 28 April 2007 03:29, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote: > "Layered learning" is not just better, it's actually the only > computationally feasible approach. > > We may talk to a baby like: > "MILK?" > "You want to play BALL?" > "Oh you POO-POO again" etc. > And these things are said simultaneously as some *physical* events (eg > milk, ball, poo) are happening, which allows the baby to correctly *bind* > the words to concepts, ie achieve grounding. > > Contrast this with something from Wall Street Journal: > Headline: "Employees of a new plan to get Dell back on the road to growth, > including streamlining management and looking at new methods of > distribution beyond the computer company's direct-selling model." > Can a baby really learn from THIS ^^^ ? ----- 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/?&; -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/?&; ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 27/04/2007 13:39 ----- 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
