regarding denotational semantics: I prefer to think of the meaning of X as the fuzzy set of patterns associated with X. (In fact, I recall giving a talk on this topic at a meeting of the American Math Society in 1990 ;-)
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The process of outwardly expressing meaning may be fundamental to any > social > > intelligence but the process itself needs not much intelligence. > > > > Every email program can receive meaning, store meaning and it can express > it > > outwardly in order to send it to another computer. It even can do it > without > > loss of any information. Regarding this point, it even outperforms humans > > already who have no conscious access to the full meaning (information) in > > their brains. > > > > The only thing which needs much intelligence from the nowadays point of > view > > is the learning of the process of outwardly expressing meaning, i.e. the > > learning of language. The understanding of language itself is simple. > > > > Meaning is tricky business. As far as I can tell, meaning Y of a > system X is an external model that relates system X to its meaning Y > (where meaning may be a physical object, or a class of objects, where > each individual object figures into the model). Formal semantics works > this way (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics ). > When you are thinking about an object, the train of though depends on > your experience about that object, and will influence your behavior in > situations depending on information about that objects. Meaning > propagates through the system according to rules of the model, > propagates inferentially in the model and not in the system, and so > can reach places and states of the system not at all obviously > concerned with what this semantic model relates them to. And > conversely, meaning doesn't magically appear where model doesn't say > it does: if system is broken, meaning is lost, at least until you come > up with another model and relate it to the previous one. > > When you say that e-mail contains meaning and network transfers > meaning, it is an assertion about the model of content of e-mail, that > relates meaning in the mind of the writer to bits in the memory of > machines. From this point of view, we can legitemately say that > meaning is transferred, and is expressed. But the same meaning doesn't > exist in e-mails if you cut them from the mind that expressed the > meaning in the form of e-mails, or experience that transferred meaning > in the mind. > > Understanding is the process of integrating different models, > different meanings, different pieces of information as seen by your > model. It is the ability to translate pieces of information that have > nontrivial structure, in your basis. Normal use of "understanding" > applies only to humans, everything else generalizes this concept in > sometimes very strange ways. When we say that person understood > something, in this language it's equivalent to person having > successfully integrated that piece in his mind, our model of that > person starting to attribute properties of that piece of information > to his thought and behavior. > > So, you are cutting this knot at a trivial point. The difficulty is in > the translation, but you point on one side of the translation process > and say that this side is simple, then point to another than say that > this side is hard. The problem is that it's hard to put a finger on > the point just after translation, but it's easy to see how our > technology, as physical medium, transfers information ready for > translation. This outward appearance has little bearing on semantic > models. > > -- > Vladimir Nesov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
