Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Gary Berg-Cross wrote:
GBC> On the issue of children’s “ontologies” you
don’t have to be a Piagetian to know there’s a good deal of theory
and data that supports the idea that’ children a least initially ground
the “semantics” of what they “know” in action and
RC> As a non clinical psychologist, it
would be useful to know what else, other than action and perception, the
children could possibly have used to ground the semantics of their
knowledge. Possibly emotions from organs and muscles within, associated
with perceived situations without and within? It would really be useful to
predict whether the basic kernel has ONLY to model action and perception, or
whether other factors (judgment incrementally based on history, identity based
on distinguishable sounds or faces, ...) are essential, or extremely important,
in accurately modeling an agent. That is, an agent based on our knowledge
of human cognition, which can use its experience as it incrementally gains that
experience through action and perception.
GBC> This developmentally underlies the ability to
represent types and tokens, to produce categorical inferences, to combine
symbols productively, to represent propositions, to represent abstract concepts
RC> None of those abilities include AND,
OR, NOT, ANY & ALL functions of FOL. Therefore this level seems to me
to be the phase which JS, FK, PH, PC, EB (and some other acronyms I can't spell)
all agree that EXISTENCE is the only operating principal in the ontogeny of agency.
An agent at this level can only detect existence of a - a - gasp - a
Thing. It can't tell A from B, or even whether there is more than one
Thing, without more knowledge. There is yet no reason to toss in time, sequence,
plurality, or those other -alities that choose new dimensions to be the next
expansion of our ontogeny.
RC> The ability to represent types and
tokens requires an ability to identify and order said types and tokens in
pluralities. This requirement argues for the ability to COMPARE THINGS
and determine whether, at the very least, they are EQUAL as a TYPE or as a
TOKEN or otherwise.
RC> This requirement argues for the
PROPERTY to be next in the ontogeny of this agency. So when there are
EXISTENCE and PROPERTY and necessarily VALUEs of the properties, there is some
history of the behavior of the world that exists.
GBC> This “growing body” of knowledge
is summarized, for example, in
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.). (2005).
The role of perception and action in memory, language,
England: Cambridge University
RC> It seems to me that history quickly
plays a role in forming behavior in an infant, so that action and perception
are soon followed by history and then later by reactions such as learning,
avoiding, seeking, and other goal oriented behaviors that are part of
GBC> Of course, typical computer systems aren't
grounded like this at all and don't develop as children do through interacting
with the world
in an embodied way.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
SOCoP Executive Secretary
[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:47 AM
To: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems
JS: What I would say, however, is that I wish I could
design a computer
system that could do that.
FK: I may sound a little cheeky, but then the furst
thing to do is to forget
the digital computers today,e specially the PCs and
their operating system.
The principles of building up a digital system to
represent larger chunks of
data (any in man media other than printed
circuits) are known, all you need
to do is find out how sematic analysis works (I assume
that I am getting
there :-)) . The maths involved is zero, because a
computer does not compute
anything it is a translating machine...
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa"
To: "Rich Cooper"
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum] '"
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems
> Rich and Frank,
> RC> ... is this a misspelling and you meant IS
> I'm sorry. I meant to type "no"
and I accidentally hit an
> extra "w". Following is what I
had intended to write:
> JFS>> In any case, a child can learn
language far better and
>>> faster than any computer system today,
and there is no
>>> evidence that the child has much, if any
> FK> I am not sure if that knowledge in a kid
is an ontology of
>> any kind created today on the current
knowledge of humankind.
> I agree. It would be misleading to call it
> FK> We always forget that knowledge is also
procedural, and it
>> is in that form what we are all after...
> I agree. But children do use metalevel
language about language
> quite early. For example, see the following
quotation from a
> 3-year-old child named Laura:
> "When I was a little girl, I
could go 'geek geek' like that.
> But now I can go, 'This is a chair.'
> Somehow, Laura has learned a lot in those three
years, but I
> would hesitate to overanalyze or overclassify it.
> What I would say, however, is that I wish I could
> computer system that could do that.