Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
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 perception.
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 etc.
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). Grounding cognition:
The role of perception and
action in memory, language, and thinking.
Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
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 agency.
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.
gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive
Secretary
Knowledge
Strategies
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
________________________________________
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
[f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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...
Cheers
Frank
----- Original Message
-----
From: "John F. Sowa"
<sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Rich Cooper"
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum]
'"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 NOT?
>
> 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 built-in ontology.
>
> 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 'ontology'.
>
> 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 design a
> computer system that
could do that.
>
>
John