Sean, (01)
Thank you for "putting a finger" on the problem. I could n't put any better
myself. I think Wittgenstein would also be happy with it. (02)
SB> There remains a difficult problem of relating pattern recognition to
>classification (i.e. I have no idea what the answer is). If there were a
>fixed set of distinct patterns, then there would be no problem (and, for
>example, machine vision would have been solved long ago). However, that
>would also imply that there are a fixed set of "forms of life". (03)
I have an idea what the answer might be: classification "forms of life" at the
top combined with "pattern recognition" within each form using "set of distinct
patterns" that belong to that particular form. The problem is then: keeping
patterns inside each form consistent with its classification. I think that
later problem is less difficult than former. (04)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sean Barker [mailto:sean.barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:28 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures
>
> The way I was taught Wittgenstein was that the Philosophical Investigations
>were a repudiation of Tractatus, and particularly of the idea that language
><b>pictures</b> the world, to replace it by the idea that language is what
>we use to talk to each other and is founded on the "forms of life" we engage
>in. The opening section of Investigations contrasts a passage where St
>Augustine describes learning the names of things he naturally recognises
>with a story about buying five red apples. In the latter - which is not
>about Natural Language Processing, what ever Pat Hayes says - he explicitly
>denies the need for pictures in the head. The remainder of the
>Investigations can been seen as a series of therapies aimed to wean us off
>the "pictures in the head" model of language.
>
> IMO the "pictures in the head" theory has its roots in Plato's theory of
>forms. From the information processing view, its paradigmatic algorithm is
>is pattern recognition, in which a signal produces a response in a matched
>filter (the pattern recogniser) which fires when the convolution of signal
>and filter crosses a pre-set threshold. The temptation of "pictures in the
>head" arises from the way our brain presents patterns ready-recognised to
>our conscious, so that when I look out of my window at an arrangement of
>red, white and black, I see a house, with no need for further deliberate
>investigation.
>
> In contrast, the paradigmatic algorithm for language is classification. I
>have a collection of arbitrary symbols (words) whose forms in no way relate
>to their usage - so "Kangaroo" might equally mean "Go Away" as naming a
>hopping animal. In using a language to name something, I use classification
>criteria that choose between alternative categories (and their names). For
>example, I would use the term "bird" of an animal which had feathers and
>walked on two legs.
>
> There remains a difficult problem of relating pattern recognition to
>classification (i.e. I have no idea what the answer is). If there were a
>fixed set of distinct patterns, then there would be no problem (and, for
>example, machine vision would have been solved long ago). However, that
>would also imply that there are a fixed set of "forms of life". The problem
>of industrial data exchange is that local organizations evolve their own
>vocabularies according to their peculiar business processes, so that
>information sharing between companies is treacherous. The differences in
>systems of military ranks between services and countries also exhibits the
>same problem. (And, by implication, ontologies based on general language
>usage provide a poor guide to the problems of developing ontologies precise
>enough interoperation between professional organizations.)
>
> I note in this forum a recurring argument between on one hand the "one
>upper ontology"/"finite set of basic concepts" school and the "no single
>ontology" school. That is, in terms of the above, the "pattern recognition"
>and the "classification" schools of meaning. Since ontology languages seem
>oriented to supporting classification, it seems the former are confused.
>
>Sean Barker
>Bristol
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|