ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:08:10 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0706160708m5bdecd9br7d28861e5b35aa6e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Azamat

this argument began by defending the proper and legitimate usage of the _expression_ 'concepts' and related terms to the discourse, and why some of us (glad I am not alone) would be very uncomfortable without it. and why some of us have a problem with it etc

Just reading this nice article  that centers on conceptualization, see par 2

http://www.loa-cnr.it/Guizzardi/FAIA.pdf




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.

Yes, but such 'objectivity' needs to be  represented and expressed, and before that happens, a lot of abstract process goes on

p

I


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.
 
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
Paphos, CYPRUS
Moscow, RUSSIA  

 
----- 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.
 
In a message dated 6/15/2007 8:14:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Azamat,

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 (iterations)

Eventually, after refinement, concepts take a shape that can be consistently expressed and
 via diagrams, notation. languages, etc
What the machine will interpret, has to be first processed in the human mind
And concepts are a device for that processing to take place, imho...

PDM

On 6/15/07, Azamat Abdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paola,

Try to explain your concerns in a more systematic way. Knowledge systems, as
semantic web applications, thinking machines, etc., are all designed to be
using ''sensible'' signs (physical signals, codes, or words) in order to
process and communicate information about things, processes, facts, rules,
laws, feelings, ideas, thoughts, or concepts.

Unlike the human brain, in the intelligent machines the symbolic codes
signify things directly without the agency of concepts, constructs, notions,
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; for
the symbol signifies, via denotation and representation, while the construct
means, via sense and reference). That is why the significance of symbols is
rather to come directly from the real objects denoted and their
relationships connoted, thus leaving off all the conceptual troubles
discommoding human beings.

With best regards,

Azamat
 
Kenneth Cliffer, Ph.D.
703-961-9614
cell: 703-919-0104
e-mail: KCliffer@xxxxxxx




See what's free at AOL.com.



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





--



Paola Di Maio *****
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai - Thailand
*********************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>