Pat C and Bruce, (01)
These issues can be discussed better under the more general thread
"Toward Human-Level AI". But just a couple of points: (02)
JFS
>> Debates about how to define the word 'axiom' are as pointless as
>> trying to define the word 'primitive'. That's a related question
>> that raises its ugly head from time to time. (03)
PC
> I am cut to the quick! I think primitives are beautiful. (04)
I'll take back the word 'ugly'. And I'll add that primitives are,
for many special cases, useful. But the debate about whether it's
possible to have a universal set of axioms is as pointless as the
debate about a universal set of primitives. (05)
Bruce
> Is it naïve of me to even consider that it might be possible to
> ground "natural language" in some fundamental universal foundation? (06)
That is a very important question. Short answer, which leads to many
more questions that are better discussed in the other thread: (07)
1. No, if you mean a finite universal set of formal axioms. (08)
2. Maybe, if you allow for an infinite set in the mind of God. (09)
3. Yes, if you mean a foundation based on every child's genome
and experience. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|