615 HIKES and counting

Top Stories

Lava Kafle


NASA on Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence by Rick Briggs

Vyasa Houston M. A.

The extraordinary thing about Sanskrit is that it offers direct accessibility to anyone to that elevated plane where the two —mathematics and music, brain and heart, analytical and intuitive, scientific and spiritual— become one.

It is tempting to think of them as computer scientists without the hardware, but a possible explanation is that a search for clear, unambigous understanding is inherent in the human being.

Prof. Weizenbaum obtained his Ph.D. degree from the Wayne State University in Detroit. After a few years in the industry, he entered the Massachussets Institute of Technology where he has held faculty positions since 1955. He is currently a professor in the department of Computer Sciences at MIT. His current research interests include Artificial Intelligence and social implications of computing and cybernetics.

Shastric Sanskrit

The sentence:

(1) “Caitra goes to the village.” (graamam gacchati caitra)

receives in the analysis given by an eighteenth-century Sanskrit Grammarian from Maharashtra, India, the following paraphrase:

(2) “There is an activity which leads to a connection-activity which has as Agent no one other than Caitra, specified by singularity, [which] is taking place in the present and which has as Object something not different from ‘village’.”

The author, Nagesha, is one of a group of three or four prominent theoreticians who stand at the end of a long tradition of investigation. Its beginnings date to the middle of the first millennium B.C. when the morphology and phonological structure of the language, as well as the framework for its syntactic description were codified by Panini. His successors elucidated the brief, algebraic formulations that he had used as grammatical rules and where possible tried to improve upon them. A great deal of fervent grammatical research took place between the fourth century B.C and the fourth century A.D. and culminated in the seminal work, the Vaiakyapadiya by Bhartrhari. Little was done subsequently to advance the study of syntax, until the so-called “New Grammarian” school appeared in the early part of the sixteenth century with the publication of Bhattoji Dikshita’s Vaiyakarana-bhusanasara and its commentary by his relative Kaundabhatta, who worked from Benares. Nagesha (1730-1810) was responsible for a major work, the Vaiyakaranasiddhantamanjusa, or Treasury of dejinitive statements of grammarians, which was condensed later into the earlier described work. These books have not yet been translated.

The reasoning of these authors is couched in a style of language that had been developed especially to formulate logical relations with scientific precision. It is a terse, very condensed form of Sanskrit, which paradoxically at times becomes so abstruse that a commentary is necessary to clarify it.

One of the most distinguished computer scientists in the world today, Prof. J. Weizenbaum is known for his major contributions to the field of Artificial Intelligence. He authored the famous ELIZA program (fore-runner of DOCTOR and other similar programs) which startlingly demonstrated the possibilities for building ‘intelligent effects’ into a computer through programming. Weizenbaum is also the author of Computer Power and Human Reasoning from Calculation to Judgement in which he critically examines the far-reaching social implications of research and philosophical assumptions regarding artificial intelligence.

Until recently, modern science, seen as a religion, lacked a deity suitable as an object of worship. The machine, which is generally pictured as something that has gears, moving parts, and so on, has existed for a long time now. To modern man the machine certainly represents power, control, mastery over nature-in other words, attributes a worshipable deity should have. But the machine lacks mystery. In fact, it often demystifies in the sense that people believe that most anything can be transformed, metaphorically at least, into the form of a machine and then understood as such. The machine has become an almost universally applicable metaphor that demystifies both itself and the thing to which it refers. This thinking holds true for both intellectuals of all persuasions as well as for ordinary people. Perhaps most people today think a thing is not understood until it has been reduced to a mechanical process.

I think that this phenomenon has contributed to science’s inability to provide an idol which the faithful can worship as truly representative of their common faith. Now recently, within my lifetime, the computer has appeared, and it seems to me that the computer fills that need. Modern man has seen that machines which physically destroy and reconstruct his environment — the steam-shovel, for example — are made in his own image. The steam-shovel has an arm and a hand, and it digs into the ground, picks up objects and so forth. Clearly, it is a kind of imitation of a certain aspect of man. But the computer takes things a step farther. When instructing a computer to think (if I may use that term for a moment) in imitation of human thought, we cross a subtle line.


NASA on Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence by Rick Briggs.

Renowned physicist and Nobel laureate, Erwin Schrodinger, father of Quantum Mechanics, writes: “No personal God can form part of a world model that has only become accessible at the cost of removing everything personal from it.” (1) We find that almost all of the scientists have chosen to rule out god from the very beginning of their research.

Presumably scientists seek to improve their position of knowledge and better satisfy their needs (pleasures) in this world by controlling nature. Unfortunately we find that so-called scientific progress more often brings an unexpected toll, a negative reaction from the material energy.

Their analysis of language casts doubt on the humanistic distinction between natural and artificial intelligence, and may throw light on how research in AI may finally solve the natural language understanding and machine translation problems.

Bhatta, Nagesha (1963) Vaiyakarana-Siddhanta-Laghu-Manjusa, Benares (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office).

Nilsson, Nils J. Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto: Tioga Publishing Co

Bhatta, Nagesha (1974) Parama-Lalu-Manjusa Edited by Pandit Alakhadeva Sharma, Benares (Chowkhambha Sanskrit Series Office).

Rumelhart, D E. & D A. Norman (1973) Active Semantic Networks as a model of human memory. IJCAI.

Wang, William S-Y (1967) “Final Administrative Report to the National Science Foundation.” Project for Machine Translation. University of California, Berkeley. (A biblzographical summary of work done in Berkeley on a program to translate Chinese.)

[THE AI MAGAZINE Spring, 1985 #39]

Considering Sanskrit’s status as a spiritual language, a further implication of this discovery is that the age-old dichotomy between religion and science is an entirely unjustified one. It is also relevant to note that in the last decade, physicists have begun to comment on the striking similarities between their own discoveries and the discoveries made thousands of years ago in India which went on to form the basis of most Eastern religions.

23 thoughts on “NASA on Sanskrit & Artificial Intelligence by Rick Briggs

  1. Indian Sanskrit Teachers isame kya madat kar sakate hain kya ? Aur agar han to unke knwladge ka fayada jarur ho hoga sath hi unhe rajgar bhi milega .

  2. * Read a token.
    * If the token is a number, then add it to the output queue.
    * If the token is a function token, then push it onto the stack.
    * If the token is a function argument separator (e.g., a comma):
    Ins anskrit The Sanskrit verbal adjective saṃskṛta- may be translated as “put together, well or completely formed, refined, highly elaborated”

  3. reshma click my link and A context-free grammar G is a 4-tuple:

    G = (V\,, \Sigma\,, R\,, S\,) where

    1. V\, is a finite set of non-terminal characters or variables. They represent different types of phrase or clause in the sentence. They are sometimes called syntactic categories. Each variable represents a language.

    2. \Sigma\, is a finite set of terminals, disjoint from V\,, which make up the actual content of the sentence.The set of terminals is the alphabet of the language defined by the grammar.

    3. R\, is a relation from V\, to (V\cup\Sigma)^{*} such that \exist\, w\in (V\cup\Sigma)^{*}: (S,w)\in R. These relations are called productions or rewrite rules.

    4. S\, is the start variable (or start symbol), used to represent the whole sentence (or program). It must be an element of V\,.

    R\, is a finite set. The members of R\, are called the rules or productions of the grammar. The asterisk represents the Kleene star operation.

    Additional Definition 1

    For any strings u, v\in (V\cup\Sigma)^{*}, we say u\, yields v\,, written as u\Rightarrow v\,, if \exists (\alpha, \beta)\in R and u_{1}, u_{2}\in (V\cup\Sigma)^{*} such that u\,=u_{1}\alpha u_{2} and v\,=u_{1}\beta u_{2}. Thus, \! v is the result of applying the rule \! (\alpha, \beta) to \! u.

    Additional Definition 2

    For any u, v\in (V\cup\Sigma)^{*}, u\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow} v (or u\Rightarrow\Rightarrow v\, in some textbooks) if \exists u_{1}, u_{2}, \cdots u_{k}\in (V\cup\Sigma)^{*}, k\geq 0 such that u\Rightarrow u_{1}\Rightarrow u_{2}\cdots\Rightarrow u_{k}\Rightarrow v

    Additional Definition 3

    The language of a grammar G = (V\,, \Sigma\,, R\,, S\,) is the set

    L(G) = \{ w\in\Sigma^{*} : S\stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow} w\}

    Additional Definition 4

    A language L\, is said to be a context-free language (CFL) if there exists a CFG, G\, such that L\,=\,L(G).

    Additional Definition 5

    A context-free grammar is said to be proper if it has

    * no inaccessible symbols: \forall N \in V: \exists \alpha,\beta \in V^*: S \stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow} \alpha{N}\beta
    * no improductive symbols: \forall N \in V: \exists w \in \Sigma^*: N \stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow} w
    * no ε-productions: \forall N \in V, w \in \Sigma^*: (N, w) \in R \Rightarrow w \neq ε
    * no cycles: \neg\exists N \in V: N \stackrel{*}{\Rightarrow} N

    [edit] Examples

  4. Thank You Reshma and ReshmaFan for picking up this hot issue. For both of You, Sanskrit says Dhatu, the most minimum criteria for Grammar. Computer programming requires declaring variables or use Complex words. the complex words are formed from simple words using grammar rules. Compound word sentence constructed in almost all languages of world mother being sanskrit. Computer language also derived from words. Can you program without using any letter, script, tool? so Mother root sanskrit is being researched in MIT. Sankrit offers logic to compression algorithms, See compressed below only 4 lines count words : Yeh sevate maamgunam gunaatparam,
    Hrdaa kadaa vaa yadi va gunaatmakam
    Soham swapaadachitarenubhih sprshan
    Punati loktritayam yathaa ravih

    The meaning in English is here:

    He who worships my attributeless form or sometimes he who serves and worships that which is beyond my magical attributes, the form with attributes, he is my very own Self. Just like the Sun purifies the three worlds, He too purifies simply by the touch of the dust of His lotus feet.

    One can attain freedom from worldly desires even by beholding God’s loving devotees that wander around blissfully-inspiring while remaining in recollection of God. In the streets that they pass through, dispassion and God’s divine love flows like Gangaji. When one remembers devotees like Suteekshan, then dispassion takes place. God also hides and watches such devotees. Why? On seeing his devotee immersed in meditation, He too becomes joyful and begins to hide and look at them.

  5. Reshma, I agree with what you say. The writer meant that logic of sanskrit is used in programming. like in sanskrit grammar notation, you have Noun -> verb->verb-> noun. In Computer programming S->A, S->B SSAABB->SSBBAA arent they same. tell us something about urself reshma, Are you in programming?

Leave a Reply