Ivan, I mostly agree (superficially) with most of what you are saying, but: I notice you avoid or over-simplify the issues mentioned in the wikipedia article "upper ontology". The points are two fold: different human beings have subtley different "upper ontologies", they tend to change over time, they are often logically inconsistent, and they are strongly tied to mood, alertness, voluability, life-experiences, culture, language. The way that Russians, Americans and Chinese think about "outer space" is different: not only is there no direct word-for-word translation for this concept, but its worse: different people put different emphasis on what is important about space, what its important defining characteristics are. For some people, "space is infinite", for other people, "space is where star trek happens", for others still "space is boring, inner space is what we should explore". So the "meaning" of the word "space" depends on the individual, and on their identity, their "value system" (what they consider to be important) and their *political* perspective. Overtly political, even: "space should be conquered, and the conqueror gets to put their national flag on it, and claim all economic extractive rights". So what is "space", really?
--linas On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Ivan Vodišek <ivan.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all :) > > May I say a few words about semantics? In my work on describing knowledge, > I've concluded that a semantics (meaning) of an expression is merely an > abstract concept of thought that relates the expression to its > interpretation in another (or the same) language for which we already know > its interpretation. Let's say we have unknown language A and already known > language B in which the language A can be expressed. To know semantics of > our language A (in the terms of B) is to know how to translate language A > to language B, under assumption that we already know semantics of B. > > If we think about it in a natural way, how do we explain to someone a > meaning of some expression? What we do in this situation is that we > actually translate the expression unknown to that person to a form that is > known by that person. For example, how do we explain in known language what > some word from another language means? We simply show how to translate it. > As simple as that. > > So, one might pose a question: "If semantics are all relative to the next > member in the chain, what are semantics of the ending chain member?" On > this thought, all I have right now are indices that the ending chain member > is the Universe itself. If this is true, then every conceivable thought has > its interpretation as an system inside Universe, with all of its static or > dynamic states. Once we can picture out how to translate an expression to > an Universe system, we can say that we know semantics of that expression. > And the meaning of the Universe system itself? Sorry, don't ask me, I > didn't create it, the thing is rolling on on its own :) > > Moving further with a train of thought, how do we stand with logic > conclusions? We translate a set of logic formulas to another new sets of > logic formulas, which could be interpreted as like we give meanings to > starting logic formulas. Take a look at this sentence: If it rains, it > means that streets are wet. We used the word "means". So, with a proper set > of translation rules, we can give meanings to languages, we can draw > logical conclusions, and, from what I've seen so far in my research, we can > build whole imaginary systems that can emulate real Universe systems. > Shortly, a set of translation rules can be seen as a knowledge base about > some situation that is possible to exist inside the Universe. > > Not to stay just on words, I develop a programming language whose > mandatory function is to make easier development at the field of artificial > intelligence. As it is all about states in the Universe, and the real life > situations are about those states, that language could be used for > programming regular applications as well. The language is working > embodiment of an universal rewrite system > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting> and has some cute properties, > complete enough for programming and concluding new knowledge, being system > transformation, abduction, deduction or induction. I'll try to inform > Opencog community about the progress of my work because I believe that AGI > world could benefit from such an investigation in a field of representing > knowledge. I hope, at least that the language would be an inspiration for a > lucid AGI developer. > > - ivan - > > > > 2017-04-20 18:19 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gross <gross...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi Linas, >> >> Thank you for your responses, and the pointer. >> >> It seems to me that your example further pin-points my question: >> >> A quasi-linear walk through a semantic network is essentially a >> constructed structure (or path) through the use of grammar, to get at a >> possible reading of a sentence that would make sense to a person within a >> "semantic space", without however capturing meaning per-se. A lexicon, say, >> "merely' captures the rules of constructions of particular given verbs and >> nouns *based* on their human interpreted meaning). >> >> Hence, grammar's purpose seems to really "only" to construct a meanginful >> path rather than tell us what the meaning of the knowledge embodied in that >> path is. The latter seems to require another "kind" of semantics/meaning >> (and perhaps some might say that there are turtles all the way down -- or >> at least until some grounding). >> >> does my intuition make sense, >> >> thank you, >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On Thursday, 20 April 2017 16:59:38 UTC+3, linas wrote: >>> >>> 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 <gros...@gmail.com> 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 <gros...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 <alexand...@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 opencog+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>> 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 opencog+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> > To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> > 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms >> gid/opencog/9ec7d280-dcc6-44f1-b5ae-8b9731d280a0%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/9ec7d280-dcc6-44f1-b5ae-8b9731d280a0%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. > 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/CAB5%3Dj6Utsgi8vebXraPOCv3eZtf1%3DAUvmDB6HTnt2OyTbCJ0Lw% > 40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6Utsgi8vebXraPOCv3eZtf1%3DAUvmDB6HTnt2OyTbCJ0Lw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > 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 opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. 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/CAHrUA37KgJ4kAnAn85fhikh4x2nTeDcHrP9wF0TYSKu4m6YSZg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
