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.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
