Mike, An interesting paper on the meanings of words is "I don't believe in word senses" by Adam Kilgarriff. He concludes:
Following a description of the conflict between WSD [Word Sense Disambiguation] and lexicological research, I examined the concept, ‘word sense’. It was not found to be sufficiently well defined to be a workable basic unit of meaning. I then presented an account of word meaning in which ‘word sense’ or ‘lexical unit’ is not a basic unit. Rather, the basic units are occurrences of the word in context (operationalised as corpus citations). In the simplest case, corpus citations fall into one or more distinct clusters and each of these clusters, if large enough and distinct enough from other clusters, forms a distinct word sense. But many or most cases are not simple, and even for an apparently straightforward common noun with physical objects as denotation, handbag, there are a significant number of aberrant citations. The interactions between a word’s uses and its senses were explored in some detail. The analysis also charted the potential for lexical creativity. The implication for WSD is that word senses are only ever defined relative to a set of interests. The set of senses defined by a dictionary may or may not match the set that is relevant for an NLP [Natural Language Processing] application. The scientific study of language should not include word senses as objects in its ontology. Where ‘word senses’ have a role to play in a scientific vocabulary, they are to be construed as abstractions over clusters of word usages. Accordingly, I am attracted to Fluid Construction Grammar in my own work because the minimal constituent in that grammar is the construction, which in some cases can be a word, but often is not. You gave as an example: So if I tell you to "handle" an object, or a piece of business, like say "removing a chair from the house" - that word "handle" is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. The utterance Texai, handle removing a chair from the house would, in my system, be processed as an imperative construction, parsing out these discourse referring objects: Texai - the software agent commanded to perform the handling actionhandling action - specifically, the action in which responsibility for accomplishing the removing action is accepted removing action - the type of removing intended by the author of the command house - the location of the actionchair - the item to be removedimperative situation - the enclosing utterance situation in which these other objects are related The Texai system, as envisioned by me to operate, would recognize this command as a parametrized task, then either (1) find an existing skill module capable of performing the task, or (2) composing a sequence of more primitive skills whose combination is capable of performing the task. As you point out, the task may be performed directly by the agent, or indirectly by managing the effort of some other agent. The author of the command does not care which alternative is chosen by the commanded agent - hence the use of the word "handle" in this construction. -Steve Stephen L. Reed Artificial Intelligence Researcher http://texai.org/blog http://texai.org 3008 Oak Crest Ave. Austin, Texas, USA 78704 512.791.7860 ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:04:08 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Microsoft Launches Singularity John, I'm developing this argument more fully elsewhere, so I'll just give a partial gist. What I'm saying - and I stand to be corrected - is that I suspect that literally no one in AI and AGI (and perhaps philosophy) present or past understands the nature of the tools they are using. All the tools - all the sign systems currently used - especially language - are actually general-purpose - AS USED BY THE HUMAN BRAIN. The whole point of just about every word in language is that it constitutes a general, open brief which can be instantiated in any one of an infinite set of ways. So if I tell you to "handle" an object, or a piece of business, like say "removing a chair from the house" - that word "handle" is open-ended and gives you vast freedom within certain parameters as to how to apply your hand(s) to that object. Your hands can be applied to move a given box, for example, in a vast if not infinite range of positions and trajectories. Such a general, open concept is of the essence of general intelligence, because it means that you are immediately ready to adapt to new kinds of situation - if your normal ways of handling boxes are blocked, you are ready to seek out or improvise some strange new contorted two-finger hand position to pick up the box - which also count as "handling". (And you will have actually done a lot of this). So what is the "meaning" of "handle"? Well, to be precise, it doesn't have a/one meaning, and isn't meant to - it has a range of possible meanings/references, and you can choose which is most convenient in the circumstances. The same principles apply to just about every word in language and every unit of logic and mathematics. But - and correct me - I don't think anyone in AI/AGI is using language or any logico-mathematical systems in this general, open-ended way - the way they are actually meant to be used - and the very foundation of General Intelligence. Language and the other systems are always used by AGI in specific ways to have specific meanings. YKY, typically, wanted a language for his system which had precise meanings. Even Ben, I suspect, may only employ words in an "open" way, in that their meanings can be changed with experience - but at any given point their meanings will have to be specific. To be capable of generalising as the human brain does - and of true AGI - you have to have a brain that simultaneously processes on at least two if not three levels, with two/three different sign systems - including both general and particular ones. John:>> Charles: >> I don't think a General Intelligence could be built entirely >> out >> of >> >> narrow AI components, but it might well be a relatively trivial add- >> on. >> >> Just consider how much of human intelligence is demonstrably "narrow >> AI" >> >> (well, not artificial, but you know what I mean). Object >> recognition, >> >> e.g. Then start trying to guess how much of the part that we can't >> >> prove a classification for is likely to be a narrow intelligence >> >> component. In my estimation (without factual backing) less than >> 0.001 >> >> of our intelligence is General Intellignece, possibly much less. >> >> > >> > >> John: I agree that it may be <1%. > >> > >> >> Oh boy, does this strike me as absurd. Don't have time for the theory >> right >> now, but just had to vent. Percentage estimates strike me as a bit >> silly, >> but if you want to aim for one, why not look at both your paragraphs, >> word >> by word. "Don't" "think" "might" "relatively" etc. Now which of those >> words >> can only be applied to a single type of activity, rather than an open- >> ended >> set of activities? Which cannot be instantiated in an open-ended if not >> infinite set of ways? Which is not a very valuable if not key tool of a >> General Intelligence, that can adapt to solve problems across domains? >> Language IOW is the central (but not essential) instrument of human >> general >> intelligence - and I can't think offhand of a single world that is not a >> tool for generalising across domains, including "Charles H." and "John >> G.". >> >> In fact, every tool you guys use - logic, maths etc. - is similarly >> general >> and functions in similar ways. The above strikes me as a 99% failure to >> understand the nature of general intelligence. >> > > Mike you are 100% potentially right with a margin of error of 110%. LOL! > > Seriously Mike how do YOU indicate approximations? And how are you > differentiating general and specific? And declaring relative absolutes and > convenient infinitudes... I'm trying to understand your argument. > > John > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1345 - Release Date: 3/26/2008 > 6:50 PM > > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
