> On 8 Apr 2021, at 18:10, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the > "Symbol Grounding Problem": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem> >
Like wiki says itself, there are a lot of issues here. The main one being the implicit materialism perhaps. > My intuition goes in the same direction as yours, that of "procedural > semantics”. I think that a universal machine is automatically a procedural semantics. Now, in AI, the term can, have a slightly different meaning, and in logic, we know that a “rich” theory can handle a part of its semantics, and even to incorporate into itself (which leads to a different machine, having again a new enlarged semantics). Those partial tractable semantics make sense. > Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that language is an emergent feature of > computational processes with self-replication. From signaling between > unicellular organisms all the way up to human language. > > Luc Steels has some really interesting work exploring this sort of idea, with > his evolutionary language games: > https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf > <https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf> > > I have been working a lot with language these days. I and my co-author > (Camille Roth) developed a formalism called Semantic Hypergraphs, which is an > attempt to represent natural language in structures that are akin to typed > lambda-calculus: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10784 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10784> Are you using universal types. Are you aware of the semantic of Natural Language based on an extended (typed) lambda calculus by Montague? A long time ago, I have used Sowa semantic network, for some work in AI. It is interesting, but later I have used Montague semantics instead, based on Tarski semantics, and on Church Lambda Calculus (with universal types). Note that Lambda calculus is about the same thing as the theory of combinators (K = [x][y]x, S = [x][y]z]xz(yz). I do consider that the work of Tarski is the most interesting work on semantics. It led to a whole branch of mathematical logic “model theory”, and Montague has convinced me that this is the best approach, even for natural language semantics, although they are many difficulties, and there is a split between concrete applicable approaches, and theoretical foundational concerns. By Gödel, we “know” (assuming mechanism) that this problem is with us … forever. Slides summary: https://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/talks/potts-symsys100-2012-04-26-montague.pdf Here is a book: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-9065-4 > > Here's the Python library that implements these ideas: > http://graphbrain.net/ <http://graphbrain.net/> > > So far we use modern machine learning to parse natural language into this > representation, and then take advantage of the regularity of the structures > to automatically identify stuff in text corpora for the purpose of > computational social science research. > > Something I dream of, and intend to explore at some point, is to attempt to > go beyond the parser and actually "execute the code", and thus try to close > the loop with the idea of procedural semantics. That seems interesting. Bruno > > Best, > Telmo > > Am Mi, 31. Mär 2021, um 17:58, schrieb Jason Resch: >> I was thinking about what aspects of conscious experience are communicable >> and which are not, and I realized all communication relies on some >> pre-existing shared framework. >> >> It's not only things like "red" that are meaningless to someone whose never >> seen it, but likewise things like spatial extent and dimensionslity would >> likewise be incommunicable to someone who had no experience with moving in, >> or through, space. >> >> Even communicating quantities requires a pre-existing and common system of >> units and measures. >> >> So all communication (inputs/outputs) consist of meaningless but strings. It >> is only when a bit string is combined with some processing that meaning can >> be shared. The reason we can't communicate "red" to someone whose never seen >> it is we would need to transmit a description of the processing done by our >> brains in order to share what red means to oneself. >> >> So in summary, I wonder if anything is communicabke, not just qualia, but >> anything at all, when there's not already common processing systems between >> the sender and receiver, of the information. >> >> Jason >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhC%3Dq%3D1t6mQzo%2BLLZCOrpXFK9etNojhQ-hgb%2BZaE2wr0A%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhC%3Dq%3D1t6mQzo%2BLLZCOrpXFK9etNojhQ-hgb%2BZaE2wr0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60bab9c1-98a1-4001-830f-fd7a469b3a8d%40www.fastmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60bab9c1-98a1-4001-830f-fd7a469b3a8d%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CC4F6114-535C-4CB6-8072-C9DB87B5938B%40ulb.ac.be.
