Concepts used to build knowledge in a brain, and then comes the need to transmit this knowledge to other brains. In Cognomática we are developing a new language. I have called vebor and has the following features:
- Easy to handle for the (attractive) people.
- Processable by computers.
- With universal vocation.
- Clear and unambiguous (when required).
If you are interested in our project please visit our website (http://www.cognomatica.org/).
@Peter "that this "dream" of a common artifical language has never really worked" maybe you're right, but as John Lennon said:
A dream that I have dreamed is just a dream.
A dream that you have dreamed is just a dream too.
The dream which we have dreamed together is reality!
The language "Loglan," designed c.1965, had many similar goals, including being computer processable. It was intended as a kind of speakable predicate logic. If you google it, you can find a lot of information. At one time there were conferences, where people attempted to speak it. People are still working on derivatives of the original Loglan. This is of course only the most recent manifestation of a long tradition of philosophical languages, real characters, cognitive calculi, etc. dating back to the 16th century at least.
However I think that this "dream" of a common artifical language has never really worked. Humans are not machines and the learning and transmission processes of knowledge, believes, experiences, etc. via so-called natural language (i.e. first of all the "mother tongue") has "a priori" nothing to do with artificial (meta-)languages elaborated for organising, representing and processing knowledge.
@Francisco Rodríguez Sedano: Is there an English version (http://www.cognomatica.org/)? My Spanish is a little "rusty"...
@Peter "that this "dream" of a common artifical language has never really worked" maybe you're right, but as John Lennon said:
A dream that I have dreamed is just a dream.
A dream that you have dreamed is just a dream too.
The dream which we have dreamed together is reality!
@Lubomir -very nice reference and why not! Let's only hope that's not a nightmare
best regards
@Bruce Not only the "language" (like "Loglan") is the problem. We still need the way how to represent the knowledge, to draw conclusions, to process the knowledge, etc.
Maybe somewhere there lies the answer to my question "What happened with “The Fifth Generation Computer Systems project (FGCS)”?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happened_with_The_Fifth_Generation_Computer_Systems_project_FGCS
@Ljubomir Sorry but we are currently working on the English version. Thanks anyway for your opinion.
Francisco,
please have a look at ISDE5 [here is the url, the access is filtered via personal request: https://isde5.pbworks.com/w/page/20159985/%22Collective%20Intelligence%20Game%22; https://isde5.pbworks.com/w/page/20160057/FrontPage].
It is based on the Digitong semantic coordinate system [P. Lèvy, 2001 — a very well written comment is here: http://snurb.info/node/85].
Maybe you could find affinities, convergences, cooperation, or limits.
Best wishes,
g
Nice, now we can speak such as science do with positive and negative, such as all in the universe
We already have a universal and completely unambiguous language for writing the results of scientific investigations and transferring knowledge among humans - it is called mathematics, and it represents an extreme of unambiguous sharable persistent meaning
we also have many powerful methods for evocation of knowledge and other human experiences - these are called natural languages, and they represent an extreme of expressiveness and innovation
the issue is in the middle - we seem to want more expressiveness from mathematics and more sharable unambiguity from natural languages - we believe that it is possible, and we know that it is difficult
this is, at its heart, a semiotic issue - how do the symbols we use reflect our intentions? How can our computing methods deal with these symbols? Every representational system is a choice of what can be represented and what will be left out, so every one of these systems should have an ``escape'' provision for what to do when something outside the scope of the system is desired or required
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence