Saturday, June 30, 2007, Vladimir Nesov wrote: VN> But diversity of challenges in reasoning itself seems to be greater VN> than what might be necessary for NLP. So why start at conceptual level? VN> Internal KR language can be used occasionally to steer pattern VN> formation and observe reasoning internals, and natural language can VN> be used for most of the teaching, from the very start.
Btw, this analogy just came to me: there's this AGISim thing going for Novamente. Are all meaningful concepts created within the system and utilized for its reasoning have each been manually provided be teacher as atomic tags? Or it just has a bunch of modality-provided tags, like 'left', 'right', 'big', 'box' and comes up by itself with complex situation concepts (like 'fetch'), subsequently used as atomic entities in multiple situations? Teching anything complex looks difficult without a language (character-based or otherwise) - no way to describe reasoning, hence it must learn much all by itself... -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=e9e40a7e
