[32]                               home                            [34]

ORB Visualization

(soon)

 

National Knowledge Project

 

Open question in knowledge representation

 

(return to main bead)

 

Paul:

 

There were two statements so provocative in the last message I could not help but to comment. 

 

The first of the statements was:

 

Language successfully communicates agreements between individuals both of whom have already a shared understanding of the concept description -- semantic meaning match ups. Language does not create these match ups, which are completely dependent upon shared levels of education and successful mutual assumptions of purpose and intent, things nowhere guaranteed by any linguistic source document taken alone.

 

I happen to agree with this statement, yet I would add that though such conceptual things are not guaranteed by any source document does not mean that there is no source document or documents that defines or can define such "match ups" and "things" that lead us to (greater) agreement and understanding. 

 

(Comment (Prueitt): we believe that this is the position of many scholars in this area)

 

Whether statistical methods of co-occurrence will help us identify or infer all these match-ups is doubtful, yet it cannot be said that it is altogether unhelpful in analyzing words from texts.  Also, there are in fact computational methods that define these "match-ups" that are not dependent upon any linguistic source document at all.

 

Here is the second statement:

 

If intelligent, but unprepared human scholars cannot divine clear meaning from language representations, why assume that machines will manage the task with far less experience and creative inspiration.

 

Computers, software architecture and the programming arts are concrete products of thousands of years of human experience and creative inspiration.  One can presume that (someday) computing machines will be more prepared (by more correct programs and data) and that they will be unbiased and less encumbered by incongruent notions. 

 

I am not so sure any individual can ever be unbiased or unencumbered by a fair measure of both conscious and unconscious ignorance.  Ignoring potential approaches or possible methods on the basis of misinformation or unwarranted assumptions is a personally damming form of ignorance.

 

Ken Ewell