Ramanisblog

Tag: Artificial intelligence

  • Computer Friendly Sanskrit How NASA Mission Sanskrit

    I had made  passing remarks on how Sanskrit sits at the top of world languages and it is Computer Programing Friendly.

    How?

    Sanskrit for NASA for Mission.jpg
    Sanskrit for NASA for Mission.

     

    ‘Very soon the traditional Indian language Sanskrit will be a part of the space, with the United States of America (USA) mulling to use it as computer language at NASA. After the refusal of the Indian Sanskrit scholars to help them acquire command over the language, US has urged its young generation to learn Sanskrit.( source. http://www.ibtl.in/news/international/1815/nasa-to-echo-sanskrit-in-space-website-confirms-its-mission-sanskrit/)

    # संस्कृत बनेगी नासा की भाषा, पढ़ने से गणित और विज्ञान की शिक्षा में आसानी
    On visit to Agra, Aurobindo Foundation (Indian Culture) Puducherry Director Sampadananda Mishra told Dainik Jagran about the prospects of Sanskrit. Mishra said, “In 1985, NASA scientist Rick Briggs had invited 1,000 Sanskrit scholars from India for working at NASA. But scholars refused to allow the language to be put to foreign use.”

    The NASA website also confirms its Mission Sanskrit and describes it as the best language for computers. The website clearly mentions that NASA has spent a large sum of time and money on the project during the last two decades.”

    How Friendly is Sanskrit to Computer Programming.

    ‘

    Given below is our sample sentence.  It appears in the text राजनीतिसमुच्चय authored by आचार्य चाणक्य |

    मूर्खः परिहर्तव्यः प्रत्यक्षः द्विपदः पशुः । which means..

    A stupid person must be avoided. He is like a two-legged animal in-front of the eyes.

    Now, let’s get back to our good old Q & A format.

    Q) Are you sure, the English translation you have provided is correct ? Else, why are there only 5 words in the Sanskrit version but so many words in the English version ?
    A) Of course, the translation I provided is absolutely correct. But your doubt is also genuine. To know why the Sanskrit version is so economic in the usage of words, we need to first understand it’s structure.

    Q) Umm hmm, go on..
    A) As mentioned in the first article of the series, the words in Sanskrit represent properties.  So the 5 words used in this sentence also represent properties.
    मूर्ख = (the property of being) stupid
    परिहर्तव्य = (the property that makes one) avoidable (by others)
    प्रत्यक्ष = (the property of being) in front of the eyes
    द्विपद = (the property of) having two legs
    पशु = (the property of usually being) tethered

    But, in spoken language, we always refer to objects and not properties. (The object being referred to need not exist in the real world. It is sufficient if it exists in the speaker’s imagination.)  So we need a way to force the above words to represent objects rather than properties. That way of forcing a word(which represents a property) to represent an object is called vibhakti.

    So, मूर्ख represents the property of being stupid, but मूर्खः (which is a vibhakti of the word मूर्ख) represents an object/person who is stupid. Here, मूर्खः is called the first vibhakti of the word मूर्ख | Similarly, परिहर्तव्यः is the first vibhakti of the word परिहर्तव्य | So, we have
    परिहर्तव्यः = an object/person who must be avoided
    प्रत्यक्षः = an object/person located in front of the eyes
    द्विपदः = a object/creature having two legs
    पशुः = an object/creature who is tethered = a beast or cattle (because usually beast or cattle is tethered)

    Q) Hmm, cool. So this sentence has five words which represent 5 properties. But we converted the 5 words into their first vibhaktis. So the 5 new converted words represent 5 objects having those 5 properties. Am I right ?
    A) Yes, absolutely.

    Q) So far we have 5 different (vibhaktified) words representing 5 different objects having 5 different properties. How does this help in making a meaningful sentence. ?
    A) Here comes the climax. There is a rule of Sanskrit Grammar which states that words having the same vibhakti represent the same object and not different objects! So the 5 different (vibhaktified) words actually do not represent 5 different objects, rather they are like pointers that point to the same object because they all have the same vibhakti viz. first vibhakti!”

     

    The same mechanism is explained below graphically.

    Demo of Sanskrit as Computer freindly.jpg
    Demo of Sanskrit as Computer freindly.

    Q) Wow! So a typical word in Sanskrit is like class in Java(without methods) and the vibhaktified form of that word is like a pointer to an object of that class. Right ?
    A) Yes! You got it.  And not just that. There are actually 8 kinds of vibhaktis in all. In this article, we have considered only the first of those 8 kinds of vibhaktis.

     

    Artificial Intelligence.

    ‘There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.

    Computer Programming with Sanskrit.jpg
    Computer Programming with Sanskrit.

    First, a typical Knowledge Representation Scheme (using Semantic Nets) will be laid out, followed by an outline of the method used by the ancient Indian Grammarians to analyze.

    Citation.

    Artificial Intelligence

    Sanskrit for Computer

  • Sanskrit Best For Artificial Intelligence Study

     

    Two languages,Sanskrit and Tamil are the oldest languages of Humanity.

     

    Essentials in Artificial Intelligence.Image.jpg.
    Essentials in Artificial Intelligence.

     

    While Tamil is in very much vogue, spoken Sanskrit is practically dead, save in a few villages in Maharashtra near Pune and in  Kerala.

     

    Both the languages though unique in their own way, they have influenced each other.

     

    One of the reasons for these languages being called Rich is the fact that they are as logical as Mathematics and Logical Positivism.

     

    Language to be rich should have the capacity to transmit thoughts unambiguously, logically the Human feelings and emotions.

     

    This can be achieved in two primary ways.

     

    One is that one word indicating a thing or feeling shoudl have as many words as possible to differentiate and convey the exact feeling or thought.

     

    Tamil achieves this by possessing as many word as possible to indicate the same thing or feeling.

     

    For instance, the word which one uses for” more in Tamil is ‘Athikam/Jaasthi.

     

    These words unfortunately are not Tamil.

     

    There are Seven  words to convey the meaning with a slight difference.

     

    They are,

     

    சால, உறு, தவ ,நனி ,கூர் ,கழி, மிகல்.

     

    There is a fine distinction between these words .

     

    This way Tamil makes sue one expresses feelings exactly.

     

    The second is that emotions and thoughts can be expressed through the tone.

     

    This Sanskrit achieves by differentiating sounds.

     

    Letters have different sounds to differentiate sounds.

     

    The sound ‘ka’ as four different tones and this is accommodated in Sanskrit by ascribing four different letters.

     

    Depending on he tone, the meanings change.

     

    And to make things more clear in a Language, clarity has to be achieved by giving prominence to the Verb.

     

    Both Tamil and Sanskrit use this to the maximum advantage.

     

    Computer programming needs such clarity of thought and logical sequencing.

     

    This becomes more critical in  Artificial Intelligence.

     

    Sanskrit has been found to be the most suited for developing Artificial Intelligence.

     

    NASA Research papers confirm this.

     

    A Report.

     

    There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.

     

    Semantic Nets
    For the sake of comparison, a brief overview of semantic nets will be given, and examples will be included that will be compared to the Indian approach. After early attempts at machine translation (which were based to a large extent on simple dictionary look-up) failed in their effort to teach a computer to understand natural language, work in AI turned to Knowledge Representation.

    Since translation is not simply a map from lexical item to lexical item, and since ambiguity is inherent in a large number of utterances, some means is required to encode what the actual meaning of a sentence is. Clearly, there must be a representation of meaning independent of words used. Another problem is the interference of syntax. In some sentences (for example active/passive) syntax is, for all intents and purposes, independent of meaning. Here one would like to eliminate considerations of syntax. In other sentences the syntax contributes to the meaning and here one wishes to extract it.

     

    ..

    It is obvious that the act of receiving can be interpreted as an action involving a union with Mary’s hand, an enveloping of the ball by Mary’s hand, etc., so that in theory it might be difficult to decide where to stop this process of splitting meanings, or what the semantic primitives are. That the Indians were aware of the problem is evident from the following passage: “The name ‘action’ cannot be applied to the solitary point reached by extreme subdivision.”

    The set of actions described in (a) and (b) can be viewed as actions that contribute to the meaning of the total sentence, vix. the fact that the ball is transferred from John to Mary. In this sense they are “auxiliary actions” (Sanskrit kuruku-literally “that which brings about”) that may be isolated as complete actions in their own right for possible further subdivision, but in this particular context are subordinate to the total action of “giving.” These “auxiliary activities” when they become thus subordinated to the main sentence meaning, are represented by case endings affixed to nominals corresponding to the agents of the original auxiliary activity. The Sanskrit language has seven case endings (excluding the vocative), and six of these are definable representations of specific “auxiliary activities.” The seventh, the genitive, represents a set of auxiliary activities that are not defined by the other six. The auxiliary actions are listed as a group of six: Agent, Object, Instrument, Recipient, Point of Departure, Locality. They are the semantic correspondents of the syntactic case endings: nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative and locative, but these are not in exact equivalence since the same syntactic structure can represent different semantic messages, as will be discussed below. There is a good deal of overlap between the karakas and the case endings, and a few of them, such as Point of Departure, also are used for syntactic information, in this case “because of”. In many instances the relation is best characterized as that of the allo-eme variety..

     

    Citation of the excerpts from.

     

    http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/sanskrit-nasa.html

     

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Brain Mapping Computers Google ‘Brain’

     

    Brain Mapping and Artificial Intelligence, a heady mixture for the intellect.

    Posting some news on this from the ‘Verge’

    Brain Mapping Project.
    Brain Mapping.

     

    Stanford Professor Andrew Ng is bringing back the idea of an artificial intelligence that can think like a person. With Google’s Deep Learning project, he’s creating machines that take a multi-layered approach to information, building up knowledge and figuring out concepts by passing data between various networks that can each recognize a small piece of it. The approach is designed to mimic how the human brain processes information with neural networks, and it’s starting to work — last year, Google’s “brain” figured out how to identify cats in YouTube videos without being told that the concept of “cat” existed.

    When he was a kid, Andrew Ng dreamed of building machines that could think like people, but when he got to college and came face-to-face with the AI research of the day, he gave up. Later, as a professor, he would actively discourage his students from pursuing the same dream. But then he ran into the “one algorithm” hypothesis, popularized by Jeff Hawkins, an AI entrepreneur who’d dabbled in neuroscience research. And the dream returned..(Wired)
    ..
    This ties up nearly with the Brain mapping project of  EU.
    Graphene — a thin, flexible atom-thick layer of carbon arranged in a honeycomb pattern — could one day revolutionize our electronics industry, and the European Commission hopes to spur development with up to €1 billion ($1.33 billion) in funding. The EC hasofficially announced two flagship projects for its Future and Emerging Technologies program, which will fund hundreds of research groups. The first will focus on developing practical uses for graphene, by integrating it with existing silicon-based technology or replacing silicon altogether. One long-running goal is to build cheap, efficient, and flexible semiconductors based on graphene, which the EC calls the “wonder material of the 21st Century.”

    The second flagship is the “Human Brain Project,” whose goal is to create a detailed map of the human brain. With a sufficiently detailed model, researchers hope they can facilitate new insight into treating neurological diseases, developing medications, and even creating parallel computing systems based on how humans think. Two other finalists, not chosen as flagships, were a plan to promote wearable health devices and a supercomputer that would track economic and social shifts.

    Each of the two winning projects will receive €54 million ($72 million) in 2013, distributed over 100 research groups for graphene work and 87 institutions for the Human Brain Project.

    Source:

     

  • Scientists Capture Invisible Motion Of Baby

    Motion, as we know, is change of position of an object with reference to Tome and a frame of reference to a previous position/point.

    If one studies the definition carefully, we would know this statement of Physics commits the fallacy of ad infinitum.

    Any position for this reference should be preceded by a previous position,which means that we never have a fixed frame of reference ans s a result ,Motion, as we understand now, is not Absolute.

    Corollary to this fact is that Motion can or may be out there where different scales are applicable.

    Please read my posts on ‘Time’ and’ Existence of other Universes”

    ‘In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point. Motion is typically described in terms of velocity, acceleration, displacement, and time.[1]Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to another reference frame.

    A body which does not move is said to be at rest, motionless, immobile, stationary, or to have constant (time-invariant) position. An object’s motion cannot change unless it is acted upon by aforce, as described by Newton’s first law. An object’s momentum is directly related to the object’s mass and velocity, and the total momentum of all objects in a closed system (one not affected by external forces) does not change with time, as described by the law of conservation of momentum.

    As there is no absolute frame of reference, absolute motion cannot be determined.[2] Thus, everything in the universe can be considered to be moving.(Wiki)

    Now Scientists have caught Invisible Motion on Video.

    Invisible Motion.

     

     

    A 30-second video of a newborn baby shows the infant silently snoozing in its crib, his breathing barely perceptible. But when the video is run through an algorithm that can amplify both movement and color, the baby’s face blinks crimson with each tiny heartbeat.

    The amplification process is called Eulerian Video Magnification, and is the brainchild of a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

    The team originally developed the program to monitor neonatal babies without making physical contact. But they quickly learned that the algorithm can be applied to other videos to reveal changes imperceptible to the naked eye. Prof. William T. Freeman, a leader on the team, imagines its use in search and rescue, so that rescuers could tell from a distance if someone trapped on a ledge, say, is still breathing.

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/scientists-uncover-invisible-motion-in-video/

    Scientists Capture Invisible Motion.

    Invisible Motion.
    Invisible Motion.

    To know how this is being done  visit. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/amplifying-invisible-video-0622.html

     

     

     

  • 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.

    Mere conglomeration of physical parts including Brain-will it produce Consciousness?

    Life is  sum of all parts and some thing more.

    Story:

    On Feb. 15, 1965, a diffident but self-possessed high school student named Raymond Kurzweil appeared as a guest on a game show called I’ve Got a Secret. He was introduced by the host, Steve Allen, then he played a short musical composition on a piano. The idea was that Kurzweil was hiding an unusual fact and the panelists — they included a comedian and a former Miss America — had to guess what it was.

    On the show (see the clip on YouTube), the beauty queen did a good job of grilling Kurzweil, but the comedian got the win: the music was composed by a computer. Kurzweil got $200.

    Kurzweil then demonstrated the computer, which he built himself — a desk-size affair with loudly clacking relays, hooked up to a typewriter. The panelists were pretty blasé about it; they were more impressed by Kurzweil’s age than by anything he’d actually done. They were ready to move on to Mrs. Chester Loney of Rough and Ready, Calif., whose secret was that she’d been President Lyndon Johnson‘s first-grade teacher.

    But Kurzweil would spend much of the rest of his career working out what his demonstration meant. Creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It’s an act of self-expression; you’re not supposed to be able to do it if you don’t have a self. To see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence.

    That was Kurzweil’s real secret, and back in 1965 nobody guessed it. Maybe not even him, not yet. But now, 46 years later, Kurzweil believes that we’re approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. When that happens, humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He believes that this moment is not only inevitable but imminent. According to his calculations, the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.

    Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster — that is, the rate at which they’re getting faster is increasing.

    True? True.

    So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.

    If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there’s no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer. It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn’t even take breaks to play Farmville.

    Probably. It’s impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which (with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because if you could, you’d be as smart as they would be. But there are a lot of theories about it. Maybe we’ll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we’ll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity.

    The difficult thing to keep sight of when you’re talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn’t, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It’s not a fringe idea; it’s a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There’s an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it’s an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.