For the discussion of the subject the details of the pattern representation
are not important at all. It is sufficient if you agree that a spoken
sentence represent a certain set of patterns which are translated into the
sentence. The receiving agent retranslates the sentence and matches the
The process of changing the internal model does not belong to language
understanding.
Language understanding ends if the matching process is finished. Language
understanding can be strictly separated conceptually from creation and
manipulation of patterns as you can separate the process of
If there are some details of the internal structure of patterns visible then
this is no proof at all that there are not also details of the structure
which are completely hidden from the linguistic point of view.
Since in many communicating technical systems there are so much details
which are
Mark Waser wrote
What if the matching process is not finished?
This is overly simplistic for several reasons since you're apparently
assuming that the matching process is crisp, unambiguous, and irreversible
(and ask Stephen Reed how well that works for TexAI).
I do not assume this. Why should
We can assume that the speaking human itself is not aware about every
details of its patterns. At least these details would be probably hidden
from communication.
-Matthias
Mark Waser wrote
Details that don't need to be transferred are those which are either known
by or unnecessary to the
I have given the example with the dog next to a tree.
There is an ambiguity. It can be resolved because the pattern for dog has a
stronger relation to the pattern for angry than it is the case for the
pattern of tree.
You don't have to manipulate any patterns and can do the translation.
-
Absolutely. We are not aware of most of our assumptions that are based in
our common heritage, culture, and embodiment. But an external observer
could easily notice them and tease out an awful lot of information about us
by doing so.
You do not understand what I mean.
There will be lot of
