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.
RGC> Most of behavior would seem to me to
be comprised of Actions and most perceptions identified as Things, or Property-Values
of Things. You also agree that somatic emotions and internal and external
situations are involved in control of action and perception in the very first
acts of a sentient agent.
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.
RGC> Yet not a single absolute
requirement for an AND or an OR yet>
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.
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