Matthias,
You seem - correct me - to be going a long way round saying that words are
different from concepts - they're just sound-and-letter labels for concepts,
which have a very different form. And the processing of words/language is
distinct from and relatively simple compared to the processing of the
underlying concepts.
So take
THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT
or
THE MIND HAS ONLY CERTAIN PARTS WHICH ARE SENTIENT
or
THE US IS THE HOME OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
the words "c-a-t" or "m-i-n-d" or "U-S" or "f-i-n-a-n-c-i-a-l c-r-i-s-i-s"
are distinct from the underlying concepts. The question is: What form do
those concepts take? And what is happening in our minds (and what has to
happen in any mind) when we process those concepts?
You talk of "patterns". What patterns, do you think, form the concept of
"mind" that are engaged in thinking about sentence 2? Do you think that
concepts like "mind" or "the US" might involve something much more complex
still? "Models"? Or is that still way too simple? "Spaces"?
Equally, of course, we can say that each *sentence* above is not just a
"verbal composition" but a "conceptual composition" - and the question then
is what form does such a composition take? Do sentences form, say, a
"pattern of patterns", or something like a "picture"? Or a "blending of
spaces" ?
Or are concepts like *money*?
YOU CAN BUY A LOT WITH A MILLION DOLLARS
Does every concept function somewhat like money, e.g. "a million dollars" -
something that we know can be cashed in, in an infinite variety of ways, but
that we may not have to start "cashing in," (when processing), unless
really called for - or only cash in so far?
P.S. BTW this is the sort of psycho-philosophical discussion that I would
see as central to AGI, but that most of you don't want to talk about?
Matthias: What the computer makes with the data it receives depends on the
information
of the transferred data, its internal algorithms and its internal data.
This is the same with humans and natural language.
Language understanding would be useful to teach the AGI with existing
knowledge already represented in natural language. But natural language
understanding suffers from the problem of ambiguities. These ambiguities
can
be solved by having similar knowledge as humans have. But then you have a
recursive problem because first there has to be solved the problem to
obtain
this knowledge.
Nature solves this problem with embodiment. Different people make similar
experiences since the laws of nature do not depend on space and time.
Therefore we all can imagine a dog which is angry. Since we have
experienced
angry dogs but we haven't experienced angry trees we can resolve the
linguistic ambiguity of my former example and answer the question: Who was
angry?
The way to obtain knowledge with embodiment is hard and long even in
virtual
worlds.
If the AGI shall understand natural language it would be necessary that it
makes similar experiences as humans make in the real world. But this would
need a very very sophisticated and rich virtual world. At least, there
have
to be angry dogs in the virtual world ;-)
As I have already said I do not think the relation between utility of this
approach and the costs would be positive for first AGI.
-------------------------------------------
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
