Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Dear Rob,
Rob Freeman <lists@CHAOTICLANGUAGE.COM> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with your method Alexander.
>If it is of your own devising you are to be congratulated, because it
>seems to be basically "distributional analysis", which is a key
>Machine Learning technique (and one which revolutionized linguistics
>in the... 30's?)
Well ..., I wonder was there Object Oriented analysis at that time ? ;-)
Also please note that the method of the processing I am proposing creates graphical hierarchies of nodes, thus lending itself to further "post-processing" using methods from the Theory of Graphs - was that covered in the 30's (or later) ?
If this classification was implemented (statically) - could you point me to the reference to (or even better to the instance of) such complete statical database of such grouping for any given language ? (such reference will be indeed much appreciated on my behalf !)
>The problem, and I think Gary is saying this too, is that you will
>find lots of hierarchies, and they will be incompatible with each
>other. None of them will capture all the information which "reflects
>on nature." No one order will be enough.
My point is - let (someone) generate (statically), manually or otherwise, such complete noun<->verb grouping classification first and store it in some form of publically accessible data base.
Then we could talk more about methods and associated with those methods difficulties of processing such "empirical" collection (by the way, we could also talk THEN what could be the end purposes of such processing -because my personal purpose of the processing such data is *NOT* to aid Machine Learning, nor in general to help in interpreting and analyzing
contextual meaning in the textually expressed information, neither in aiding translation from one language to another - though all of these other goals might be (or might be not) possible to acheive - my interest is to see what could be derived (from the data organized/classified in proposed manner) about fundamental properties of the Objectively Existing Nature - hopefully removing the effects of
the Human "distortion" (perception) in reflecting such Objectively Existing Nature (so obviously I am NOT the subjective idealist, but follow the materialistic school of thought, though I am leaving the issue of "Initial Conditions" (if any) to be too far away in the
past to pass my judgement upon it - I just do not know the answer for this question. However, I think (by the analogy with other phenomena) that sometimes the "initial conditions" (especially remote ones) could be ignored as non-meanigful while solving other issues ... and I believe that is the case for this BEGINNING question (I am not saying that this question is not important - it is very important of course but NOT for the purposes of examining what exists NOW).
>That is the problem: not how we find order, but the amount, and the
>nature (inconsistent), of the order we find.
See my opinion expressed above (that is your question is "premature") -
let first have a look at the complete data that we will get from the proposed "experiment" and try to process it in empirical manner.
>I think the solution is to do just the kind of search you propose, but
>to do it "on the fly." So you can find the "meaning", out of all the
>(inconsistent!) "meanings" with which it is possible to interpret the >world, which is relevant to a given problem at any given moment.
>-Rob
Alex