Dick,
It seems pointless to me for you to continue to *argue* your claims
here on this list, for it is well within your power to *prove* what you
say your system can do - provided, of course, that what you say it can
do is true! There are any number of peer-reviewed journals,
conferences, companies, venture firms and business markets that would
reward you highly if you can prove even half of what you claim to have
accomplished. Why continue to assert your claims here against an
unreceptive audience?! Go out and conquer the market! Then you can
return here, triumphant and rich, and gloat if you want.
John
Richard H. McCullough wrote:
Just correcting a few misconceptions, below.
Dick McCullough
http://mkrmke.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
But when you claimed that the work you did in the past 5 years with
no prior study in the field was the equivalent of what all the people
working on Cyc had done in the past 25 years, that was so ridiculous
that it immediately classified you as a crank.
RHM>
I did not say that. I have studied in the field for 45 years.
I said that I had no knowledge of the work being done at Cycorp.
I said that my 5-year system was similar to Cycorp's 20-year system.
RHM> Syntactically, context is represented in the mKR language as
at space = s, time = t, view = v { sentence; };
where s, t, v is the context of the sentence. v is the name of
the context, which is implemented as a complex data structure
in the mKE program. s, t name the space-time coordinates which
are applicable when sentence involves a "physical" situation
such as an action or interaction.
This kind of representation falls right in the middle of the road
of the kinds of things that many people have been doing. It has
the three parts: proposition p, context C, and relations space,
time, and view. But it lacks the rules of inference that specify
what kinds of reasoning can be performed on that notation. Your
statement about the "complex data structure" v is also rather
woolly and requires a more precise specification.
RHM>
Why do you continue to deny that a working computer program
provides any specification of the data structures and the
reasoning?
In addition, I have posted a lot of details on my website,
and on KR-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
What Pat, Chris, and I have found very irritating is that you keep
making grandiose claims about having a context language that solves
all the world's problems. But in fact, it's similar to what other
people have been doing for the past 30 years or more. Unlike those
other systems, your specification lacks rules of inference.
RHM> I think in human terms. Start with a "tabula rasa" brain --
where the only propositions are those which correspond to the
structure of the human brain, which recognizes "existent", "entity",
"part", "attribute", etc. Then progressively, fill in the context
with all the propositions which represent the human's sensory
experiences of the external world, and his thinking about those
experiences.
In Matthew's words, that is truly woolly. Aristotle was also thinking
in human terms, but he was a very careful analyst. In his books on
interpretation and the psyche, he went into great detail about all
those issues. In the past two millennia, the greatest philosophers,
psychologists, linguists, and neurophysiologists have gone considerably
further, yet many unsolved problems still remain.
You can do good work in areas of your expertise without having studied
all those writings. But when you claim that your woolly paragraph
is somehow superior to those two millennia of research, you make
yourself sound like the crankiest of cranks.
Suggestion: If you stick to the syntactic and semantic details of
specifying your notation and defining what it means in computable
terms, then there's something we can usefully discuss.
But when you make grandiose claims that your thoughts are somehow
superior to all those publications you have never read, then we
just dismiss you as a crank.
RHM>
"never read" ??? Come on, John. You know that's not true.
While I have not published any books, you also know that
my "woolly paragraph" is a summary of material published
in the books of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley.
Citations of these books are listed on my website.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|