[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rob Freeman" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:41:32 +0800
Message-id: <7616afbc0809302341g67f16adah3981dc2df2467c60@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> This all sounds very, you know, intriguing, like the blurb on the dustjacket
> of a fantasy novel. But you never actually tell us what you are talking
> about, Rob. You just keep making indirect allusions to deep "problems" and
> hidden "pitfalls" and your preferences for a more "geometric" approach to...
> well, to something, though Im still not sure what exactly.  And when we
> challenge you to come out and actually say something, as Chris did, you
> instantly retreat into a huffy "lets not argue about trifles" stance.  One
> is inevitably led to guess that you don't actually have anything substantive
> to say. All you do is stand at the edge of the work site and make sniffy
> noises about how the foundations are in the wrong place. As one of the
> workers, I herby invite you to put on a hard hat and actually
> try doing something. Then we might be willing to take some notice. But until
> you do, your suggestions to 'consider a more fundamental topology' will fall
> on - well, not deaf, but closed - ears. Pat,    (01)

I know your ears are closed Pat. It is only natural. If you regard
yourself principally as an engineer working with logic, then none of
it will make any sense to you. It is pointless to try.    (02)

Certainly the typical point-by-point argument about exact language
interests me not at all.    (03)

I'm not posting for you, but for others who might glimpse problems in
the formalism they are working with.    (04)

As I said, if you don't see the problems, my solutions certainly won't
interest you.    (05)

If there's anyone here whose knowledge representation interests are
not limited to engineering with logic I recommend again the references
I gave a week or two back in this thread. In particular Giuseppe
Vitiello, because he relates his ideas specifically to cognition, but
his presentation is perhaps a bit dense. The work on Vector Symbolic
Architecture I recommend as very practical and easily implemented, say
for purposes of search, by indexing words in texts etc.    (06)

I referenced once before here Giuseppe Vitiello's lecture on a basis
for concepts in the dynamics of
many-body systems. Perhaps it bears repeating:    (07)

http://www.archive.org/details/Redwood_Center_2007_01_23_Giuseppe_Vitiello    (08)

For good measure I hope you don't mind if I throw in the references I
sent you in a private mail some months back:    (09)

I recently found some more "chaos in cognition" refs. which brought
you to mind. They were sitting around, waiting for some kind of
critical mass before I posted them somewhere. Perhaps now is as good a
time as any.    (010)

Here's a taster...    (011)

Firstly, did you know one Ben Goerztel wrote a book entitled "Chaotic
Logic - Language, Thought and Reality From the Perspective of Complex
Systems Science" back in 1994?
(http://www.chaoticlanguage.com/node/35)    (012)

Then, even more interesting, poking around Ben Goertzel's associates,
something called "Vector Symbolic Architecture" for cognitive
representation. E.g. Simon Levy presents VSA's in the context of "The
Need for New Representational Principles"
(http://www.chaoticlanguage.com/node/37.)    (013)

Then the idea of holographic representation comes up:    (014)

Jones, M. N., & Mewhort,D. J. K. (2007). Representing word meaning and
order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological
Review, 114, 1-37.    (015)

http://psyc.queensu.ca/~hiplab/LAB_PUBS/Jones_Mewhort_PR.pdf    (016)

Remember how holograms came up also in our Ontolog discussion. It's a
wonderfully close parallel. It turns out a guy named Tony Plate has a
formalism he calls HRR, or Holographic Reduced Representation. That
was what inspired VSA's (due to Ross Gayler.)    (017)

VSA's are especially good. They seem to present (compositional)
representation as a vector product in much the way I've been
advocating.    (018)

Broadly speaking all these people are in the perception/psychology
community. Quite a different world once again from both the
linguistics and ontology communities.    (019)

>From my point of view all we need to do is mix the idea of a vector
product giving a compositional character (VSA's), with
example/usage-based ideas already current in linguistics.  Perhaps the
initiative will come from the perception/psychology community.
****    (020)

-Rob    (021)

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    (022)

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