zlacker

Is it possible that the inherent context dependent ambiguities of human language make knowledge-based inference so difficult since most current knowledge is stored in human language ?

tangential question: is there a standard language for "knowledge", like how we describe math for "computation" ?

Are a part of our brains essentially compilers from human language to an internal definition of "knowledge" that leads to consciousness ?

>>vsskan+(OP)
There are a bunch of "standards" for representing knowledge. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

[Edit] Here's a wider overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_r...

>>sp332+d1
Thanks for the link. It seems to talk about a knowledge graph type links between entities. It is however in a human language (here, english). I am interested in knowing if there's something analogous to "math" to represent knowledge.

>>vsskan+T1
The knowledge is represented in the links. Words don't inherently mean anything. The meaning of a word is how it relates to other words. The "math" of knowledge representation is in manipulating and searching the graph. The nodes can be named anything, because the names aren't knowledge, they're just tags on parts of the knowledge.

>>vsskan+T1
Most of human knowledge are represented in logic. Semantic web is designed from description logic. A less powerful logic than first order logic.

>>vsskan+(OP)
Attempto Controlled English[1] is a cool project: it's a formal language, but a subset of ordinary English.

My own Hode, described in an earlier comment[2], makes it easy for anyone who speaks some natural language to enter and query arbitrary structured data.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempto_Controlled_English

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21784617