Re: Cognitive Physics: the processing steps of thought


It seems to me that as long as we use a language that does not
distinguish cognitive particles, but uses the terms 'subject',
'predicate', 'verb', etc, we will be unable to understand A.I. or
program a computer to use it. Glosa is an IAL ( international
auxiliary language ) based on Greek and Latin roots, but with a
grammar based entirely on word order ( syntax ) as in Chinese. The
following explanation of its grammar, from the point of view of lambda
calculus, is presented at my website,
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe/gram.htm

Take the following sentence in Glosa:

Es u lingua tu no ski pa existe.

This translates literally as:

Its a language you didn't know existed.

The phrase "you didn't know existed" could be said to modify
"language" and so in the Glosa equivalent we could put the Glosa ";"
punctuation mark ( see the link above ) after it, but it could also be
expressed as a function word in lambda calculus. Using the syntax of
Scheme ( see above ) we could also express other modifying phrases in
relation to the words they modify, like this:

( Es u (lingua tu no (ski (pa existe))))

As this looks a little awkward, we could use the following
equivalences instead:

"." == "("
"," == ")"

So the sentence could be written like this:

.. Es u .lingua tu no .ski .pa existe,,,,

But since in speech these distinctions do not occur, perhaps it should
be relegated to the grammar books and discussions on the proper usage
of the language.
It should also be noted that the above syntax does not precisely
correspond to the computer language syntax of the Scheme programming
language or classical lambda calculus. Thus, for example, instead of
this:

( lambda x ( + 3 x ))

we would write the same thing like this:

{ + 3 x }

The '{' represents the defining word 'lambda', and '}' the end of the
definition. The calculus of natural language includes only the lambda
definition and not its application; therefore the fact that we are
defining a new instance of 'x' is irrelevant since we are also
defining a new instance of the function '+'. It differs from a
computational context, in that all the elements of calculation in a
defining context are functions and not variables or literal constants.
There are three contexts: a defining one, a computational one, and an
applicative one. The latter is entirely dependent on the former, and
of itself cannot influence the outcome of the previous ones.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cognitive Physics: the processing steps of thought
    ... It seems to me that as long as we use a language that does not ... expressed as a function word in lambda calculus. ... The '{' represents the defining word 'lambda', and '}' the end of the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: defining the behavior of zip(it, it) (WAS: Converting a flat list...)
    ... > is no technically reason why it would do it one way or another. ... used in support of not defining it. ... making this a defined behavior results in making the language ... >> that really pisses me off about Python sometimes. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: VS2005 doesnt like its own suggestions
    ... > Java gives fixed sizes for its int variables, ... > Using a typedef is fully consistent with ISO C++. ... To say that a certain OS support a certain language, ... MS has no business in defining, ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Re: Separation,Power and Countability.
    ... language is definable in the language iff there is a defininig ... notion of definability. ... indeed a defining formula in the previous sense I mentioned. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Separation,Power and Countability.
    ... language is definable in the language iff there is a defininig ... notion of definability. ... indeed a defining formula in the previous sense I mentioned. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading