Ferenc,
I would like to propose a different set of
primitives; consider objects and situations as the ONLY primitives. Both
objects and situations can be further subdivided into various axes of
comparison. Some have mass, some have energy, some have locality, some
have whatever other properties you prefer to postulate.
So it is the enumeration of properties
that your new infant begins to learn and apply to separate those primitive
objects and situations into “a kind of”
partitions. Later, seeing a new object or situation X which is somehow
reminiscent to the infant of a previously encountered object or situation Y,
the infant has the eureka moment of distinguishing X “is a”
Y.
You can further describe other iterative
and recursive rational processes by which the primitive objects and situations
are observed, classified, acted on experimentally, and by which theories can be
formed in the infant’s emerging consciousness and memories.
The crucial idea is to NOT start with
classes, sets, or other constructions, which are not truly primitive. The
infant perceives objects, and situations (relationships among collections of
objects and situations) differently as she learns more and more about these
mysterious realities.
HTH,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010
1:57 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers
You refer to my quote from Wikipedia, of
which I highlighted the following
Main points: … add semantic
information…associating variable and function references with their
definitions…parsing … a complete parse tree, meaning that this phase
logically follows the parsing phase,
While I agree with you on the points raised, it appears to me that
the only useful information to find as far as the semantics (function) of the
code is the source code, as opposed to all sorts of commentaries made in the
history of the product life cycle.Even though, that wass not my point as you
can see above. My point is that you want to analyze a program (in fact, any
human artifact) semantically, which is an exercise involving the identification
of definitions, interpreting semantic information as a structure with
cross-references, etc.
DE:
The reason that UNL needs to be at the table is that global
society is on a track of being totally dependent on software driven processess.
I believe you. But consider this:
Curiously enough, we have not managed to use even the simplest
terms/paradigms of data processing in describing our models of the world (in
thinking). Typically, there is a great hullaboo about databases and knowledge
representation collections, including ontologies but nothing is modelled about
their processing in the mind as an analogy to computer EDP, except from trying
to read the mind by using invasive technology in neurology. It should not
matter how data in mind are processed, we should look at it as a black box and
be concerned with the output and the fact that only a part of the workings of
the mind is done rationally and be influenced by will and reason. Typically, the
news headings in the media today are undergoing a change and the naming
conventions of passages and any lengths off texts in the internet seem to be
downright crazy and intentionally ambiguous, because tension creatd by
paradoxes is supposed to increase readership.
Ferenc