Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:06:50 GMT, Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
>> Patty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> 
>>>Now obviously any two instances of identical phrases used 
>>>against the same context vector would not necessarialy refer 
>>>to exactly the same thing, but me thinks it would be close 
>>>enough to start playing the language game.
>>>
>> 
>> Yes, we can start playing the game but I was making a theoretical
>> point. For true NLU, we need to resolve those referents which will not
>> be immediate from a purely syntactical analysis.
>> 
>> My point was that determining referents is an AI-complete problem. And
>> that is only one of the many problems for a semantics analyzer. You
>> can't really tell the referents without a world model and deliberate
>> perception and imagination of the context.
>> 
>> That might not be necessary for a chatbot or a personal assistant
>> (although I imagine people will readily expect such skills from a bot
>> that is seemingly competent)
>
>Perhaps I should emphasize more that the stratagy is to 
>create a platform on which we can *start* evolving.  Even a 
>baby does not know its references when it *starts* to babble.
>
>One of the probelms that I see with the development of human 
>level intelligence that is no carry over from one AI project 
>to another - there is no evolution of artificial 
>intellegence itself.  Oh sure, we stand on each others 
>successes - that level of technological evolution is always 
>happening; and the literature and practices of science is, 
>in a sense, an evolving AI.  Also we can look at the 
>Internet, the web, google etc,  as a kind of evolving AI.
>
>My proposal is that we define a platform, an environment, in 
>which a species of AI processes can evolve using ALife 
>stratagies and NN stratagies and whatever other stratagies 
>someone can think of.  There is no need to restrict which 
>stratagies this species of processess (i like to call them 
>gremlins) can use.  If the psysical environment of these 
>gremlins is stable enough,  is useful enough for us humans 
>to sustain it, then these gremlins *will* evolve.  As the 
>human host, you would not be speaking to a single gremlin - 
>rather you would be speaking to a whole society of gremlins.
>
>Let me give just one example of what one gremlin might do.
>
>Given the the following fragment of the enviroment:
>(SENTENCE (SUBJECT john) (VERB gave) (DIRECT-OBJECT (a 
>ring)) (INDIRECT-OBJECT lucy )
>There may be a gremlin that would emit the folowing to the 
>enviromment:
>(CONTEXT whatever#1
>     (_:a#1 $type giving)
>     (_:a#1 $giver john)
>     (_:a#1 $recipient lucy)
>     (_:a#1 $gift (_:a#1 $type ring)))
>That is all this particular gremlin could ever do.  An 
>instance of the gremlin would come alive based upon (VERB 
>?x) in the enviroment.  If that particular behavior was not 
>found to be useful, then this species of gremlin would die 
>off.
>
>Now you probably see in that one example pretty standard 
>knowledge engineering techniques. But bear in mind that we 
>are not limiting gremlins to knowledge engineering technques 
>- but at the same time we are not excluding them.
>
>Now what do you think?
>
>Note: newsgroup comp.ai.nat-lang added - this discussion 
>belongs there because it is more about engineering.
>
Perhaps you might find this interesting:

    http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/reviews/rouchier.html

Regards,
Bengt Richter