From bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM Thu Mar 14 06:46:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 14:46:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 90012 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 14:46:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 14:46:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (140.186.114.245) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 14:45:41 -0000 Received: by rattlesnake.com via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:44:15 +0000 (UTC) To: robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com, bob@rattlesnake.com In-reply-to: <20020314132839.EBC9F127AB@manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr> (message from Robin Turner on Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:50:13 +0200) Subject: Re: [lojban] lojban application in wearable computing References: <20020314061311.GC2700@twcny.rr.com> <20020314132839.EBC9F127AB@manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr> From: "Robert J. Chassell" Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810561 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13711 > The advantage of Lojban is that it is more than an imperative > language in disguise. So at some point, if used for human-computer interaction, would perhaps be a way to help computers get from reacting to commands to responding to their environment. AI has to progress a little first, but I don't think it's inconceivable that in the future I could sit down at my computer (or wear it!) and say, for example, {.oiro'i} and the computer could decide what an appropriate response (or non-response) would be. Yes, that's it. With Lojban, I think we will have an easier time going further. Humans have written programs that fake a non-imperative relationship, but no one has yet built a machine that actually is independent of humans. For an example of a fake response, consider the 1960s AI Eliza program. It is built into the program which I am now using to respond to email. I and it just produced this dialog: human> I am feeling anxious. computer> Why do you say you are feeling anxious? On the one hand, the imperative nature of the interaction is disguised. You don't see me giving orders in the dialog. On the other hand, in order to start the program, I did give a command: I ordered the computer to respond to key words in my text in a manner that weakly emulates a Rogerian therapist. Clearly, this just moves the location of the order a little away from the obvious. You are asking for a yet further step, for a computer that also looks at the interactive context between me and the computer and figures out that I am responding to your message. Perhaps you are also looking for a computer that possesses smell sensors that tell it whether my body is exuding chemicals that indicate anxiety. Another step is to move the order to the machine's start up script, so that when you power-on the computer, it receives its orders -- it receives its `prime directive'. Each of these steps disguises the imperative more than the previous step. However -- and this is where I think Lojban may fit in -- my expectation is that at some point, as we see an increase in the complexity of computer's hardware and software, a computer will cease to respond to humans as a well behaved, intelligent human who is a subordinate, and begin to behave in a different manner, perhaps like a person who is running a separate business than you. My hypothesis is that Lojban can be turned into a better tool for the kind of programming that this step requires than a regular programming language, such as Lisp, Prolog, Python, or C. However, such independence is a long way off. An early step is to create an interpreter or compiler that can handle standard inferences, such as He has a weak cough; I am not sure whether it caused by the dust in this building or an illness; he definately has a runny nose. He says he feels terrible. I conclude he most likely has a .... In the process of creating such a tool, we will find out more of what makes a programming language different from a language such as Lojban or English that humans can use to speak about many different things. For example, programming languages appear to me to be based on logics that provide coherent and consistent mappings across domains. As far as I know, all programming language use definitions that directly, or indirectly, are built from necessary and sufficient conditions. (`Fuzzy logic' and `uncertainty factor' techniques provide ways to emulate categories that are not strictly defined directly.) Humans, on the other hand, do not define all concepts this way. They only define some concepts necessary and sufficient conditions, such as those associated with law, physics, or mathematics. For example, humans do not define the concept of `mother' with consistent, coherent, necessary, and sufficient conditions. To be called a `mother', a person need not be a birth mother, need not be an adoptive mother, need not be nurturant, need not take care of the baby, and need not be female. Instead, in every day life we humans use a different categorization method. However, to settle disputes we often use courts; and Western courts often redefine the aspect of an everyday category such as `mother' to be appropriate for the case at hand. Usually, a court uses consistent, coherent, necessary, and sufficient conditions so that it can draw inferences and come to a conclusion. Interestingly, humans consistently and coherently map bit patterns in a computer to concepts that have meaning for humans -- that is to say, the humans undertake a metaphorical action, a mapping, that works as far as the humans are concerned. For example, I command the computer to move the cursor back to the beginning of the current sentence by typing an ALT-a keychord. From the point of view of the computer, there is no meaning to this action. >From the computer's point of view, it receives a bunch of electronic pulses and as a result, it changes changes the set of electronic pulses that it sends to the screen. However, the action is meaningful to me. I see the cursor jump back to the beginning of the sentence; that location becomes my new editing point. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com