On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote: (01)
> Let me amend/expand my statement.
>> RHM> I don't believe John or Pat have come to grips with the
>>> meaning of symbols in any natural language, e.g., English.
> I think your Conceptual Graph work in the 1980s was outstanding.
> It was one of the few things in the AI field that I really admired.
> I also like your "Knowledge Representation" book.
> I'm not as familar with your work, but I applaud your efforts
> such as the Naive Physics essay. I don't like your approach
> to Semantics.
> John & Pat
> Today, I think you have gone astray.
> Your focus on "possible worlds" has prevented you from grasping
> the true meaning of words, which is derived from sensory perception
> of things in the real world. (02)
Actually it is not, at least not entirely. This has been empirically
tested and verified in numerous ways. It would be impossible to derive
the meanings of abstract and category words from such experiences. (03)
> Let me emphasize that this is not a personal attack.
> I like you both as persons, and admire some of the work that you
> have done.
> But I think that your current approach to Semantics is just plain
> wrong. (04)
We know that YOU THINK this, Dick. However, to be frank, what you
think cuts no ice with me whatsoever, because you have given no
argument or reasons for WHY you think what you do. And as you have no
public record of every having done or written anything worthy of note
in any area connected with these difficult topics and have never
subjected your ideas to peer review, and as your email pronouncements
regularly reveal elementary misapprehensions, technical mistakes,
basic errors of comprehension and so on, your views on my (and John's)
views are simply of zero interest. (05)
> I know that your approach is considered standard practice by many
> people. (06)
No. We (John and I) do not even have a single "approach", and there
are no "standard practices" here, apart from evidence of basic
> But I do not endorse it. I do not consider it appropriate for natural
> I do not consider it appropriate for mKR. (08)
What is appropriate for mKR is your call, obviously. Good luck with
that project. (09)
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (012)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)