[Corpora-List] PS:minimal changes in a paragraph (based on a corpus it appeared) ... (2nd attempt (after first one was deleted))

[Albretch Mueller]

On 8/10/11, John F. Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 8:20 PM, Albretch Mueller wrote:
>> I think if you harness syntax really tight in a totally exaustive way
>> (think of keeping all possible n-grams of all texts) "semantics"
>> becomes some sort of illusion (how functional|irrelevant illusion it
>> be, remains to be seen)
>
> Semantics is *never* an illusion.  Communication doesn't happen by
> a random accident with randomly generated words.  Somebody generated
> those words to communicate some specific information for some purpose.
~
 when I said *illusion* my intention was not to downgrade semantic
aspects of communication as irrelevant. There are, for example, very
exploitably fruitful illusions such as "space" and "time"
~
>
> I'm sure that if you used N-grams with a very large N, every sentence
> generated would *seem* to be meaningful.  But the apparent meaning in
> the generated sentence would *not* convey the meaning that the speaker
> had intended to communicate.
>
> Semantics originates in the mappings of perception and action
> to and from whatever is stored in the brain.  For example,
>
>     Situation --> sensory icons --> interpretation by percepts -->
>     concepts and conceptual structures --> words and syntax --> speech
~
 the directness of that process to me is a bit unrealistic "speech"
and "words and syntax" "influence conceptual structures" and even the
perceptability and interpretability of "situations"
~
 We have talked about that before and (I think) I do understand the
way you think about it, there is definitely a relationship between
syntax and semantics, but thinking you can somehow harness semantics
by syntactic means to me feels sort of like saying that "truth is what
is 'democratic'/popular".
~
 Given a question to an unknown problem (prime cases in which
semantics gets in the way) not because you use finely detailed
metadata -about what you know- will bring you closer to the truth/a
new discovery
~
 What I meant is if we are somehow able to design a device which keeps
on line (and exhaustively so) not just very large but *all N-grams* of
all texts based on some sort of "instant- (or actually no-) search"
grammar (some parts of that device are technically feasible right now)
the question of "semantics", "searching" (including context/personally
customizable search), ... become somewhat like comparing the
differences in the mental representations of two people when they
talk/negotiate about something. (and to me that very much relates to
the mind-body link) Does it really matter that their neurons spike in
the same way? This is what I mean when I say that semantics would
be/and -is- an illusion, a healthy and necessary one at that!, given
the intersubjectivity of our semiosis
~
> But the meaning resides in the mappings that some agent chooses
> for some communication to some listener for some purpose.
> That meaning does not reside in a random selection of N-grams.
~
 No it does not and I never spoke of -random selections-. "Meaning"
like memory foremost -is- (is brought about by being) intersubjective
~
> My question:  How do you use the speaker's intentions to control
> the selection of N-grams (or other patterns) to convey the meaning?
~
 I am not sure if I get your question and/or where is it coming from,
but I think this very naturally happens through people's agency when
they communicate/"are themselves"
~
 lbrtchx

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora