Hi Linas, I think you "morphism" example is very interesting and just to emphasize a key insight -- context.
In context of A one morphism may hold, in context B another -- and you indicated two kinds of contexts, ) domains (swimming, rowing) and human-introspective-valueladen interpretive context. thank you, Daniel On Friday, 21 April 2017 18:02:03 UTC+3, linas wrote: > > Ivan, > what I wanted to say is that meaning depends not only on the language, > but also on the person, and it changes over time. Most people agree on the > meanings of most words, most of the time, but not always. Best example is > the slang of some subculture. If the subculture is a gang, there moght only > be 10 or 20 people in the world who understand and mostly agree on the > meanings of some of the words that the gang uses. And even then, they might > not agree, due to some confusion. > > Yes, meaning might be a morphism: (a morphism being an arrow between two > things, what you called "source" and "target") Meaning might be more than > just a morphism between concdpts or words; it may be a morphism between > structures. In the context of "rowing", the word "catch" corresponds to a > specific set of physical movements. In the context of "swimming", it means > something conceptually similar, but physically not the same. In the > context of "baseball", it's completely different. > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Ivan Vodišek <ivan....@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Yes Linas, thank you for response. That is why there is no exclusively >> definite interpretation of any expression. Expression "space" can be >> translated to numerous meanings, with each meaning having its own, slightly >> different interpretation in its own language. If we think about >> "Multiverse", notion "space" could look differently in each Universe >> sourcing from Multiverse (I hope my imagination doesn't spoil my >> arguments). If we tie semantics not only to starting expression, but also >> provide the second parameter (target), we have opportunity to define >> semantics as a function of two parameters: source Universe and target >> Universe. And even when we reach target Universe, there are options to >> define ambiguities of a single target expression, I agree. >> >> So the question we have to ask when we seek for *a* semantics of an >> expression should have the following form: What does expression X in >> language A means in language B, C or, maybe, D? >> >> Ivan >> >> >> 2017-04-20 20:30 GMT+02:00 Linas Vepstas <linasv...@gmail.com >> <javascript:>>: >> >>> 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....@gmail.com >>> <javascript:>> 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 <gros...@gmail.com >>>> <javascript:>>: >>>> >>>>> 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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com >>>>> <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/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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>>> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com >>>> <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/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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com >>> <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/CAHrUA37KgJ4kAnAn85fhikh4x2nTeDcHrP9wF0TYSKu4m6YSZg%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA37KgJ4kAnAn85fhikh4x2nTeDcHrP9wF0TYSKu4m6YSZg%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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to ope...@googlegroups.com >> <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/CAB5%3Dj6V1CMtaoTtp%2BLGC6sGGNGoWP%2B2oe%3DUOgh53Zq5Ayb-r9g%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6V1CMtaoTtp%2BLGC6sGGNGoWP%2B2oe%3DUOgh53Zq5Ayb-r9g%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/20ee8a1b-52f0-4d47-bb47-9234ff204938%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
