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