Artificial Language : How does it work please?
|From:||Mathias M. Lassailly <lassailly@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, November 11, 1998, 13:39|
Could someone help me ?
I don't know anything about computers and maths and I wonder how artificial
language softwares deal with experience beyond information. I try to explain
what I mean (don't laugh at me, I try my best once again ;-) :
I understand that when making a database you identify items in terms of
reciprocal proximity : an owl is an animal, bird, of prey, nocturnal, etc. But
doing so you deal only with information, not experience. I guess that
experience is not a cluster of pieces of information. Maybe experience lingers
in your brain as the configuration of all links between available pieces of
information. If such link is only a pulsed distance between pieces of
information then I can imagine you could measure it to one distal standard and
retrieve anything at a given adddress. But I figure out that to know whether
you need to go for one piece of information, you would first need to measure
its distance from *all* other available pieces of information in your brain
according to all their own, different, respective distal standards. Since there
are as many standards as pieces of information, there would be no standard. I
mean : a piece of information is not an information anymore when it's a stan!
rd to measure all other pieces of information and vice versa. This is why I can't
get how you can make an artificial language based on *predicate*. Let's take
Lojban (sorry : I set aside xmene, bridi, etc. for a while although I respect
them all right). Lojban claims that its predicates encompass all possible
arguments thanks to prepositions. In other words, no argument is *closer* to
the predicate than another. In other words, the predicate is the *attribute*
both of all possible arguments and of none. In other words, you will never be
able to measure any distance whatsoever from an argument to a predicate and you
will only classify items by measuring frequency of occurence of clusters. But
how do you know there is a cluster of items if you can't tell distances between
them ? Is it because a clause comprises a definite number of them around a
predicate linked thereto by affixes such as *from*, *towards*, *with*, *via*,
which are precisely other *predicates* whatever you cal!
them (affixes, prepositions, etc.) ? But I figure out a predicate is not an
argument nor a link between arguments but a preset cluster of arguments which
in turn are predicates to each other. So how many arguments do you get in the
cluster around the predicate now ? My answer would be : all core arguments
beside the predicate plus all arguments within the predicate plus all arguments
within the *prepositions*. Like white light is all lights so red light is also
white. And how do you identify the arguments implied within a predicate ? This
should depend on which argument you take as a standard. The trouble is then
that the one you pick as standard is not an information anymore. So which one
isn't an information ? Does the most irrelevant information become the standard
(or reversely) ?
I mean : does the computer handling an artificial language only analyse
information according to a set of standards or also speak ? Thanks for putting
this down and giving me tangible clues.
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/