Re: Universal grammar

In article <haberg-2910061325250001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1162073668.333366.75620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rob
Freeman" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As I understand Rob Freeman does something like this,
derive grammar from examples.

I think one point is that humans learn not only by examples, but by
experience, and that latter is hard to pin down in a computer. Also humans
have wider range of understanding abstractions, from details, up to rules,
further up to principles. A good theory will connect different level of
abstractions.

You are over-complicating things Hans.

What I am suggesting is at root very simple. I am saying there are more
patterns in text than can be captured by any one summarization.

Any criticism should be directed at that idea. If your theory then
needs to make distinctions between "examples" and "experiences", a
"wider range of understanding abstractions", "details", "principles",
or "different level of abstractions", that is fine. It does not have
any bearing on the argument I am making.

Humans do not have any problemsswitching orcombining different contexts,
working simultaneously on different levels of abstraction. Computers can't
do that.

Computers do what they are told to do, no matter how stupid,
by the programs compiled by their compilers and put together
by their operating systems. They can work simultaneously, to
the extent they are multitaking, on even totally different
problems, but everything to a computer is "rules".


Or so I think. If you want to prove me wrong, justwrite acomputer
program doing the things human can do. :-)


--
Hans Aberg
AFAIK, computers cannot engage in biological activies.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is OO Popular?
    ... In most domains there are many abstractions, ... > that computers behave like other computers. ... surely just as solid a basis for design, ... since this implies that language has no impact on ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Lame philosphy
    ... abstractions, and that computers at best *approximate* UTMs. ... of the living systems represented thus, is to to project our own conceptions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My real opinion about real numbers
    ... >> point was that i don't like abstractions. ... >> much with computers. ... of proove that the number generated is not a real number at all. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: More static type fun.
    ... > a compiler, alarms should be going off very loudly. ... > abstractions, ... the language and become fluent in it. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Exploiting limitations of Turing machines in Turing tests?
    ... Because humans are subject to the same limitations. ... Turing Machine, but none of them are close to physically realizable in this ... humans are even WORSE off on these topics than computers. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)