[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Toward Human-Level Artificial Intelligence

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:19:53 -0400
Message-id: <53589EF9.6030106@xxxxxxxxxxx>
David, Gary, and Kingsley,    (01)

> The intro [of Phil J's thesis] summarizes the arguments for the
> controversial claim that human-level AI is possible with a knowledge
> representation based on natural language.    (02)

> And what about the issue that a goodly slice of human communications
> is decidedly NOT natural language?  Acronyms, local jargon, industry
> slang, puns, etc.    (03)

> Sure we invent acronyms, but that seems  a natural part of our
> communication (and cognition), just simplifying  the signs to convey
> our intentions and understanding.    (04)

I agree with Gary.  Every acronym, abbreviation, slang, jargon, pun,
etc., is a normal application of the resources of our everyday language.
In fact, all the symbols and notations of mathematics evolved from and
are still explained in terms of ordinary language.    (05)

The plus sign '+' is a simplified ampersand '&', which is an
old Latin way of writing 'et'.  So 2+2=4 is an abbreviation for
"Two and two is 4."  All the mathematical symbols evolved as
abbreviations for ordinary words.  Mathematicians can still read
any equation over the phone to another mathematician as a sentence
in whatever NL they share.    (06)

For more detail, see http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf    (07)

> It is *impossible* for anyone -- human or computer -- to relate a term
> from an NL text to a URI that adequately represents that term until
> *after* they have analyzed and understood the NL text.    (08)

> That's also true...    (09)

I agree with your points, and I'm glad that you agree with me.    (010)

But there have been some people who claimed that you need a distinct
URI for every sense of every word.  Unfortunately. no annotators
(human or computer) can agree on which URIs to assign.    (011)

To achieve a 90% agreement among annotators is unusually high.
That means that a typical page with 300 words would have at least
30 errors -- even if you had professional annotators.    (012)

John    (013)

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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>