DARPA has just requested proposals for a system that will read everything,
listen too everything, look at everything and then figuure out what is
going on in the world. It is a stretch goal but DARPA does those.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"op
Hi Ivan,
I think best if you can spend a bit time on working on a few representative
examples that shows what you can do with your embedded language. AI
discussions tend to get very abstract, very quickly :-), so to "engineer"
ground ourselves its best to talk by way of examples. This helps hi
Daniel/Ivan,
It is quite obvious we are not really in OpenCog territory here, but what
your discussion is hinting at is that you will need your own theory of
meaning, or theory of the meaning of meaning. At the conceptual level my
approach begins where Linas left off, ie there is no meaning ind
Mr. Daniel Gross,
I'm afraid I'm going to leave the juicy AGI details to AGI developers (not
to say it is an easy part, far from that). I decided to be just a technical
guy, if anyone is interested in my low-level solution of programming
language that equally easy (or hard) solves application deve
Hi Ivan,
thank you for your response.
Pattern matching is a very general purpose mechanism -- in my mind key
questions are:
what governed the language for pattern description and the semantics of how
patterns match with inputs
what governs the language of transformational rules, triggered b
Hey Daniel, great to see someone interested in AGI :)
How about us, humans, I mean how do we think? I'm not trying to resemble
our neural networks, I took another, top-down approach, in between, but
let's observe us as an thinking example. Do we see how our thoughts are
formed? I think that we don
I installed the recent version and tried FC. Previously i used to work
> with only three arguments. But now as it requires four parameters, i gave
> empty ListLink additionally. But it throws Error.
My scm has:
(load "/opt/opencog/opencog/pln/rules/deduction-rule.scm")
(InheritanceLi
Hi Ivan,
Your work sounds very exciting ... would be great to hear more about it.
I think one issue with the approach you are describing is that you have to
assume the knowledge of a second language and a mapping, in principle, from
the first to the second.
I think systems that aim to self-
Not to forget, languages A, B C and D from the previous post could all be
different domains of the same language.
2017-04-20 20:53 GMT+02:00 Ivan Vodišek :
> Yes Linas, thank you for response. That is why there is no exclusively
> definite interpretation of any expression. Expression "space" can
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", notio
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,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Gross wrote:
> 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 t
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
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 tha
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Daniel Gross wrote:
> Hi Linas,
>
> How do you propose to learn an ontology from the data --
>
The simplest approach is to simply read english-langage sentences that
encode an ontology: for example, an early version of MIT ConceptNet
contained the sentence "a vi
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"
struct
As I see it, the meaning of a word can be understood as the fuzzy set
of patterns in which that word is involved...
Some of these will be purely language-internal patterns (as
highlighted by Saussure and other structuralist linguists way back
when), others will be patterns associating the word wit
17 matches
Mail list logo
