[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:08:52 -0500
Message-id: <p06230911c29ca282bc0c@[]>
>Paola: ''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...''
>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 intellection.    (01)

Or, indeed, to explain that agency itself: 
without, of course, assuming a magical "inner 
mind" to weave the semantic spells.    (02)

>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.
>    (03)

Folks, this is a huge topic of debate and has 
been since the start of modern cognitive science. 
A full survey would fill a library. I once tried 
to make a list of all that had been written on it 
- this was over 15 years ago - and I gave up 
after about 200 items, which included about a 
dozen books. By now there must be about 50 books. 
(For those who want to start on this stuff, you 
could do a lot worse than read Dennett's 
"Consciousness Explained".)    (04)

Almost any clearly stated view on this topic will 
be opposed by others who find it offensive or 
*obviously* mistaken.  I doubt if anyone has had 
their mind changed by anything that has been 
written.    (05)

There is no point in trying to settle, or even to 
rehearse, these debates in this forum. Let us 
just agree to disagree. For the record, I'm on 
Azamat's side.    (06)

Pat Hayes    (07)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (08)

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    (09)

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