1. Natural Language
--snip--
>{other Mike's}theory of Natural Language.
--snip--
>To create a natural language system means
>teaching the human language to the computer with similar
>expectations you would have of a learner of any foreign
>language.
hrmmmm......
firstly, when we say "human language" do we mean English?
(petty point perhaps, but! IMHO English is the worst
language to actually code a natural language in....
a better language is one that is more inherently "discrete"
or "digital" as opposed to English, which is pretty wacked)
secondly, teaching someone who *already* knows a language
(any language) to be verbose/fluent in another language
is *very* different ....*very different* indeed... from teaching
someone who knows *no* language to speak any language
at all. IMHO, the way we might want to think about
implementing this is to use the context of teaching an
infant to speak...since... in this context, the computer
is much more akin to an infant than it is akin to an adult
foreigner learning another language.
>I tried making a natural language system using English to
>English interaction, but it didn't work very well for the very
>reasons cited by other members of the list.
and for perhaps the reason above?
>But now I'm using
>an idea originally proposed by the UN -- using an intermediate
>language that logically defines grammar and vocabulary sorted
>topically.
much better... and perhaps more "digital" in nature.
each word _meaning_ one thing and one thing only,
each word _being_ one thing and one thing only.
no words that are nouns and verbs, or words like
"read" and "read" (heh...which is which eh?)
couldn't this intermediate language be *the*
language itself? the actual natural language?
and would this intermediate language be a
true natural language, or as I said before, would it
be in fact a "high-level" language instead?
--snip--
here's another way this could be done...i think?...
heh...
using the premise of the infant, and perhaps
some theory from neural network programming,
supposeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
what if......BIG if....
what if we took a computer, gave it some sort of
rudimentary interaction with its environment,
let it begin making its own associations, letting
it figure out from its surroundings what its own
natural language will be, based on interaction
with others using their own natural language.
an infant learning to talk from its parents.
much research has been done in this area, the
biggest snafu so far that i have seen is
processor power and patience...
the first is now perhaps not much a problem
anymore...the second...patience on the part
of the researchers... no comment :)
will this approach give us the result we desire?
will it give us natural language programming?
yes.
will it give it to us rapidly?
no.
can this approach use euphoria?
very much yes, and euphoria might just actually
be the better of the programming language choices
to do it in.... thoroughly variable data structures
that expand and collapse dynamically at runtime
and associate themselves in infinite potential
connections between each other...
hrmmmmmm....
sounds like neurons?
sounds like how a baby learns?
association 1 is experienced so, insert that
association into a variable at such and such
place without regard to what it might be, or how
big (read, number of neurons needed to associate)
that association might be... shove it in and euphoria
just makes the sequence larger... handy for this...
'nuff rambling ...'nuff food for thought :)
Mike.
2. Re: Natural Language
>Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:06:04
>To: mdeland at nwinfo.net
>From: "William J. Oney" <brown60 at zianet.com>
>Subject: Re: Natural Language
>
>Ok... this stuff is probably way over my head but... I love the subject :)
>by the way, I'm new here, and my name is William Oney, and I'm 18...
>and I basically screw around never finishing anything I program... oh
well... hehe
>anyhoo...
>
>>>teaching the human language to the computer with similar
>>>expectations you would have of a learner of any foreign
>>>language.
>>hrmmmm......
>>firstly, when we say "human language" do we mean English?
>>(petty point perhaps, but! IMHO English is the worst
>>language to actually code a natural language in....
>>a better language is one that is more inherently "discrete"
>>or "digital" as opposed to English, which is pretty wacked)
>
>---what about all of them?
>---it's a computer right... don't have to worry about not remembering... or
being too complicated...
>
>>secondly, teaching someone who *already* knows a language
>>(any language) to be verbose/fluent in another language
>>is *very* different ....*very different* indeed... from teaching
>>someone who knows *no* language to speak any language
>>at all. IMHO, the way we might want to think about
>>implementing this is to use the context of teaching an
>>infant to speak...since... in this context, the computer
>>is much more akin to an infant than it is akin to an adult
>>foreigner learning another language.
>
>
>
>>>I tried making a natural language system using English to
>>>English interaction, but it didn't work very well for the very
>>>reasons cited by other members of the list.
>>and for perhaps the reason above?
>>
>>>But now I'm using
>>>an idea originally proposed by the UN -- using an intermediate
>>>language that logically defines grammar and vocabulary sorted
>>>topically.
>>much better... and perhaps more "digital" in nature.
>>each word _meaning_ one thing and one thing only,
>>each word _being_ one thing and one thing only.
>
>---so we're not talking about artificial intelligence?
>
>>no words that are nouns and verbs, or words like
>>"read" and "read" (heh...which is which eh?)
>>couldn't this intermediate language be *the*
>>language itself? the actual natural language?
>>and would this intermediate language be a
>>true natural language, or as I said before, would it
>>be in fact a "high-level" language instead?
>>
>>--snip--
>>
>>here's another way this could be done...i think?...
>>heh...
>>using the premise of the infant, and perhaps
>>some theory from neural network programming,
>>supposeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
>>what if......BIG if....
>>what if we took a computer, gave it some sort of
>>rudimentary interaction with its environment,
>>let it begin making its own associations, letting
>>it figure out from its surroundings what its own
>>natural language will be, based on interaction
>>with others using their own natural language.
>>an infant learning to talk from its parents.
>>much research has been done in this area, the
>>biggest snafu so far that i have seen is
>>processor power and patience...
>>the first is now perhaps not much a problem
>>anymore...the second...patience on the part
>>of the researchers... no comment :)
>>will this approach give us the result we desire?
>>will it give us natural language programming?
>>yes.
>>will it give it to us rapidly?
>
>--- Here's the main reason I replied...
> I'm probably being naive thinking not many people have thought of this,
but
> giving it the ability to browse the world wide web, not a very good
teacher...
> but more human-like language... eh... more rapid than feeding it by
hand...
>
>>no.
>>can this approach use euphoria?
>>very much yes, and euphoria might just actually
>>be the better of the programming language choices
>>to do it in.... thoroughly variable data structures
>>that expand and collapse dynamically at runtime
>>and associate themselves in infinite potential
>>connections between each other...
>>hrmmmmmm....
>>sounds like neurons?
>>sounds like how a baby learns?
>>association 1 is experienced so, insert that
>>association into a variable at such and such
>>place without regard to what it might be, or how
>>big (read, number of neurons needed to associate)
>>that association might be... shove it in and euphoria
>>just makes the sequence larger... handy for this...
>>
>>'nuff rambling ...'nuff food for thought :)
>>Mike.
>>
>
>well... I need to read a lot more before I can begin to offer much
intelligence to your conversation, but it stimulates my brain... :)
>
3. Re: Natural Language
Hi...
I don't know how to program for windows yet, but there is something I would
really like to be able to do in with a windows program.
I would be so thankful if someone could point me in the right direction,
whether it's even possible, or too hard to try for another 2 years or so...
Hopefully it's simple enough that you could just tell me what I need to do
in euphoria to accomplish it...
Anyhow... this is what I would like my program to do...
Read what text is printed to a window from another program...
And send text to a window in the same program...
I don't know about windows(95 by the way), but I know a lot of people have
written their own programs that work and interact with AOL, or Netscape or
Internet Explorer... so I know it's possible, but do you have to have
permission from the author of the program to write helper applications for
it? Do you have to know the names of the procedures that the program uses?
Even if these were the case, is it possible to write a program that runs in
the background and "manipulates" the current active window?
Help would be much appreciated...
Always Learning,
Bill
4. Natural Language
Is it too late to jump into this?
I was thinking. Who will write the spell checker for this language? It
will need a spell checker. In fact, a thesaurus would be very appropriate
to suggest alternative algorithms in certain situations. Oh yes, a real
time grammer checker.
Of course, I am actually serious about making this work. I just wanted to
add a little levity.
--[ Joe Phillips, Assistant Director
--[ Texas Wesleyan University 817-531-4444
--[
--[ "The tongue of the just is as choice silver:
--[ the heart of the wicked is little worth." Proverbs 10:20
5. Re: Natural Language
*YAWN* did somebody say something?
6. Re: Natural Language
At 05:54 PM 4/1/95 +1000, you wrote:
>*YAWN* did somebody say something?
>
Sorry, I must have been snoring...
--[ Joe Phillips, Assistant Director
--[ Texas Wesleyan University 817-531-4444
--[
--[ "The tongue of the just is as choice silver:
--[ the heart of the wicked is little worth." Proverbs 10:20
