Hans Peter Willems - Feb 15, 2011:

So far you are ‘processing’ information, but I can’t see anything that will create emergent behaviour in your model so far. But I might be wrong about that and if so I’m sure you will enlighten me

So here’s the problem.  One can give demos until they are blue in the face, and others can just say “Oh well, that example doesn’t show <X>, thus it is only information processing”.  No matter how many examples are given.

I need an example of what you would call understanding.

Victor Shulist - Feb 15, 2011:

I need an example of what you would call understanding.

I think I just posted one in the other poll-topic.

Hans Peter Willems - Feb 15, 2011:

As long as your model does not cater to somehow store ‘something more’ then only ‘pieces of text’ then that is all it will do in the end; shuffling pieces of text around (although in a grammatically correct way ). It will never be able to go beyond what the programmer has put into it. It will never have an ‘original thought’ of it’s own.

Agree, that is why, later, I plan for the bot to ‘learn by example’,  learn HOW to do things, not just WHAT things are, by example combined with language understanding.

** You’ll come back with “well, *just* understanding language, and *just* learning by example with NLP, is not enough for “true understanding”, and there we will go in circles, without examples of what you would consider understanding.

It always goes back to the same problem :

Understanding and Intelligence are not clearly enough defined.

Hans Peter Willems - Feb 15, 2011:

Victor Shulist - Feb 15, 2011:

I need an example of what you would call understanding.

I think I just posted one in the other poll-topic.

ok, i’ll check

Victor Shulist - Feb 15, 2011:

Understanding and Intelligence are not clearly enough defined.

I DO agree on that wholeheartedly

Yes, so I saw your example, sorry, read through to fast the first time, and have responded.