Semantics and syntax are two different things. Syntax allows you to parse sentences. Semantics is more about how concepts inter-relate to each other. -- a network. A sentence tends to be a quasi-linearized walk through such a network. For example, take a look at the "deep" and the "surface" structures in meaning-text theory. From there, one asks "what kind of speech acts are there?" and "why do people talk?" and this is would be the "next level", beyond the homework exercise I mentioned in the previous email.
--linas On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Daniel Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]. >> > 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/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/CAHrUA36Khj%3DjzeoROj%3DPHC9SKTP0Jr5syG2gfd4P8YXb8bdDqA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
