Paola: ''What the machine will interpret, has to be first processed in the
And concepts are a device for that processing to take place,
KCliffer: as long as humans are the ones using the symbols, we cannot
escape the passing of the "signification" through the human mind, and therefore
an inevitable "mediation of the conceptions of the human intellect," despite
Abdul's indication that they get their significance without it.
Paola and Ken,
The whole issue of true intelligent machines is to discover the semantic
mechanisms and techniques and procedures for signs, signals, symbols and
communication to directly signify the things in the world [including
the things of the mind as thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings and
images as a variety of signs, mental], ultimately, without the agency of human
All the same, i don't question the traditional position that the
constructs, as concepts or ideas or thoughts, are required as the agency
whereby signs and symbols signify things and that signs get their
meanings via cognitive processes of the mind. What i question is the
established view that the computing machines are not able to compass any
semantics, since they handle only physical signals instead of constructs. And
that a human being, a coder, programmer, or ontologist, should interpret
the signals, by assigning the senses to the coded information; and that no
human beings, no constructs; no constructs, no meanings; no meanings,
no knowledge systems.
After all, true meanings or significances are objective things,
characterized by their objective laws, principles, rules, or
constraints.The task of real ontology and general semantics to nail down
the objective nature of meaning as well as the universal patterns of
signification, to be represented by semantic machines.
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept
or not to concept,is this a question?
I just realized that Paola expressed essentially the same idea as
what I just sent about Azamat's thoughts.
thanks. I do not disagree with anything below. The
correct use of concepts, and derived terms, is indeed in the mind, not in
the machine, obviously.
However for humans to formalize the
'sensible signs' that you refer to, conceptualization
of thoughts in
their mind is a necessary step.
In fact, before humans can produce
something that machine can use, a lot of conceptualization get scrapped
Eventually, after refinement, concepts take a shape that
can be consistently expressed and
via diagrams, notation.
What the machine will interpret, has to be first processed
in the human mind
And concepts are a device for that processing to take
On 6/15/07, Azamat
to explain your concerns in a more systematic way. Knowledge systems,
semantic web applications, thinking machines, etc., are all designed
using ''sensible'' signs (physical signals, codes, or words) in
process and communicate information about things, processes,
laws, feelings, ideas, thoughts, or
Unlike the human brain, in the intelligent machines the
signify things directly without the agency of concepts,
categories or abstractions. This means that the
nature of mechanical meaning
is dependent on the types of symbols and
the kinds of things these symbols
denote (symbolize, stand for or name)
or represent. And that knowledge
machines are devoid of mental
experience or meaningful mental constructs.
The symbols processed
by the mechanical intelligence are the signs of
entities and hence they
get their significance without the mediation of the
conceptions of human intellect ( note, the signification, not meaning;
the symbol signifies, via denotation and representation, while the
means, via sense and reference). That is why the significance
of symbols is
rather to come directly from the real objects denoted
relationships connoted, thus leaving off all the conceptual
discommoding human beings.
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/