Phil Henshaw wrote: > Are you saying that the 'contextualize' > function extracts the meanings of the words though, and looks for other > associations with those meanings, or does it just reflect things like > frequency and proximity of occurrence. > The purpose of the contextualize function in that ad hoc example is to get the meaning of a word based on the situation in which it is used. In the example it was a simple lookup, but there's no reason it couldn't do backtracking, on-the-fly simulations/forecasts, or whatever. Modeling the context is, worst case, itself a hard problem. But then I think people frequently misunderstand one another too, and there is always the option of the computer asking for clarification.
I'm a little concerned we're going to get bogged down in a round-and-round discussion about whether artificial intelligence is possible and whether meaning is something specific to human brains. My answer to those questions are yes and no, respectively. Digital computation can simulate physical processes as needed (e.g. of brain neurochemistry) and where digital simulation isn't efficient enough, there's always the possibility of measuring analog circuits, or even quantum ones. I personally expect pure logic will be the best tool for realizing computer intelligence. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
