rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) (12/05/87)
In article <1431@houdi.UUCP> you write: > (in reference to Sellers' well written summary of neurological variables involved in language......) > >has to be read cautiously. It means we need a good understanding of >the essential processes required to process language. As has been >pointed out by others, it doesn't mean we should imitate structures >and techniques that are just one way of executing those processes. > C'mon Marty! Do you mean to imply that you know of other "structures and techniques" which might serve as models in natural language processing? Do you mean to imply that "those processes" are comprehensively understood by anyone or any thing any where? Sellers is right in suggesting that we will not have automated natural language processors until we know a great deal more about what we are trying to automate. That knowledge will come from studying the structure and FUNCTION of the only natural language processor thus far recognized. If you know of any non-human natural language processors that possess the unrestricted conversational abilities of the average human speaker, I would like to hear of them. In fact, I would like to speak with them. Could we talk about dog training? Art history? How about the philosophy of science? w.rolandi job(ok) :- disclaim(rolandi,everything). ncrcae!gollum!rolandi
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (12/08/87)
In article <21@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>, rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) writes: > > In article <1431@houdi.UUCP> you write: > > (in reference to Sellers' well written summary of neurological variables > involved in language......) > > > >has to be read cautiously. It means we need a good understanding of > >the essential processes required to process language. As has been > >pointed out by others, it doesn't mean we should imitate structures > >and techniques that are just one way of executing those processes. > > > C'mon Marty! Do you mean to imply that you know of other "structures and > techniques" which might serve as models in natural language processing? No, of course not. > Do you mean to imply that "those processes" are comprehensively understood by > anyone or any thing any where? Sellers is right in suggesting that we will > not have automated natural language processors until we know a great deal > more about what we are trying to automate. That knowledge will come from > studying the structure and FUNCTION of the only natural language processor > thus far recognized. Of course, he's right. But he could be misinterpreted. You misinterpreted me. > If you know of any non-human natural language processors that possess the > unrestricted conversational abilities of the average human speaker, I would > like to hear of them. In fact, I would like to speak with them. Could we > talk about dog training? Art history? How about the philosophy of science? C'mon, yourself. You know perfectly well that, as a technology matures, it stops modeling its techniques on "natural processors" and develops artificial substitutes that were previously unknown. You don't fly by flapping wings, your car doesn't propel itself with legs, and your air conditioner sweats as a result of cooling, not the other way around. We first learn from natural processors, and then we progress by inventing artificial processors. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1