Hi Ben, Thank you for your response. I started reading the paper and was wondering if you could help me clarify a confusion i apparently have when it comes to the meaning of meaning:
How is linguistic meaning connected to human embodied meaning that we would call human (or AGI) understanding. Linguistic meaning seems to be about the linguistic meta-language that shows how a human would parse a sentence unambiguously, so that a human can, in principle, understand the meaning of a sentence, although, what is, say, instructed by a sentence, as understood by a human seems not captured, but would require more machinery. In this sense, linguistic machinery seems to embody (as a theory of mind) how humans understand (in a cognitive economical manner), rather than what humans understand --at least this is what confuses me ... any thought would be much appreciated ... thank you, Daniel On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 09:16:42 UTC+3, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > We have a probabilistic logic engine (PLN) which works on (optionally > probabilistically labeled) logic expressions.... This logic engine > can also help with extracting semantic information from natural > language or perceptual observations. However, it's best used together > with other methods that carry out "lower levels" of processing in > feedback and cooperation with it... > > In the case of vision, Ralf Mayet is leading an effort to use a > modified InfoGAN deep NN to extract semantic information from > images/videos/sounds to pass into PLN, the Pattern Miner, and so forth > > In the case of textual language, Linas is leading an effort to extract > a first pass of semantic and syntactic information from unannotated > text corpora via this general approach > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3372 > > The same approach should work when non-textual groundings are included > in the corpus, or when the learning is real-time experiential rather > than batch-based.... but there's plenty of nitty-gritty work here... > > ben goertzel > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Gross <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Hi Linas, > > > > How do you propose to learn an ontology from the data -- also, what > purpose > > would, in your opinion, the learned ontology serve. Or stated > differently, > > in what way are you thinking to engender higher-level cognitive > capabilities > > via machine learned bundled neuron (and implicit ontologies, perhaps). > > > > thank you, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 03:40:47 UTC+3, linas wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Alex <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Maybe we can solve the problem about modelling classes (and using OO > and > >>> UML notions for knowledge representation) with the following > (pseudo)code > >>> > >>> - We can define ConceptNode "Object", that consists from the set or > >>> properties and functions > >>> > >>> - We can require that any class e.g. Invoice is the inherited from the > >>> Object: > >>> IntensionalInheritanceLink > >>> Invoice > >>> Object > >>> > >>> - We can require that any more specifica class, e.g. VATInvoice is the > >>> inherited from the more general class: > >>> IntensionalInheritanceLink > >>> VATInvoice > >>> Invoice > >>> > >>> - We can require that any instance is inherited from the concrete > class: > >>> ExtensionalInheritanceLinks > >>> invoice_no_2314 > >>> VATInvoice > >> > >> > >> If you wish, you can do stuff like that. opencog per se is agnostic > about > >> how you do this, you can do it however you want. The proper way to do > this > >> is discussed in many places; for example here: > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology > >> > >> I'm not particularly excited about building ontologies by hand, its > much > >> more interesting (to me) to understand how they can be learned > >> automatically, from raw data. > >>> > >>> > >>> But I don't know yet what can and what can not be the parent for > >>> extensional and intensional inheritance. Can an entity be > extensionally > >>> inherited from the more complex object or it can be extensionally > inherited > >>> from empty set-placeholder only. When we introduce notion of set, then > the > >>> futher question always arise - does OpenCog make distinction between > sets > >>> and proper classes? > >> > >> > >> Why? This "distinction" only matters if you want to implement set > theory. > >> My pre-emptive strike to halt this train of thought is this: Why would > you > >> want to implement set theory, instead of, say, model theory or > universal > >> algebra, or category theory, or topos theory? why the heck would > >> distinguishing a set-theoretical-set from a > set-theoretical-proper-class > >> matter? (which oh by the way is similar but not the same thing as a > >> category-theoretic-proper-class...) > >> > >> You've got multiple ideas going here, at once: the best way to > hand-craft > >> some ontology; the best theoretical framework to do it in; the > philosophy of > >> knowledge representation in general... and, my personal favorite: how > do I > >> get the machine to do this automatically, without manual intervention? > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> There is second problem as well - there is only one - mixed > >>> InheritanceLink. One can use SubsetLink for the extensional > inheritance > >>> (still it feels strange), but there is certainly necessary syntactic > sugar > >>> for intensional inheritance, because it is hard to write and read > SubsetLink > >>> of property sets again and again > >>> (http://wiki.opencog.org/w/InheritanceLink). > >> > >> > >> If the machine has learned an ontology with a million subset links in > it, > >> no human being is ever going to read or want to read that network. > It'll be > >> like looking at a bundle of neurons: the best you can do is say "oh > wow, a > >> bundle of neurons!" > >> > >> --linas > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >>> "opencog" group. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >>> email to [email protected]. > >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > >>> To view this discussion on the web visit > >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/a6d0102e-9ca1-4204-8dd4-75a9fb2ec06b%40googlegroups.com. > > > >>> > >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> > >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "opencog" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/01d0f8ad-2c6c-44af-9e46-fc71e2f2559f%40googlegroups.com. > > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "I am God! I am nothing, I'm play, I am freedom, I am life. I am the > boundary, I am the peak." -- Alexander Scriabin > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/75e2e6d9-8f6b-411d-ad9f-2b7566620cf4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
