Re: [ontolog-forum] semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

 

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. 

 

Well, I am not well read in that subject, the latest I have on acquiring conceptual primitives by children is  Dr Mandler's How to Make a Child, a lecture I discussed with John Bottoms in private mail. If you are interested I can share the points raised with you. I look at the "situation" differently.

 

I call Knowledge that is generated in the mind and body of living creatures by leaving marks or traces of what they have had as input and have used successfully to attain their goals, etc.So the question is how rich is ypur experience turning into knowledge, which is then translated into a language that can be shared, etc. There is always a point when you encounter with something you have not heard/seen, etc. before. In this situation you meet an object, which is aproduct of form and content, quality and quantity, and has the property of being generic and specific at the same time.

 

If you do not recognize something as known/familar, you do not know that in they way that you do not identify a form (pattern, a whole), instead, you may be able to recognize content, which is one or more properties.

 

Here I can join you, we nearly agree:    

 

Rich: 

 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.  

FK: maybe

What I believe is

1) The property discovered is both generic and specific to that encounter.In the list of extension (examples of objects featuring that property or mix) you have one instance an the automatic generation of expectation to meet another occurence of the thingie with the same properties. (This is generalization, rule making, pattern seeking, etc.) So you decide on the next encounter if you have to increase your counter of the members in the extension list or to start a new list. Mind you, here you have properties and objects as related to in encounters.

And you have the issue of form and content. So on the first encounter you may call your new friend a name which IS the form to be shared with the rest of us. Now you KNOW your thing in terms of from and you may be clever enough to be able to list its content, a cluster of properties.

You also see the object as quality and quantity. An object is a product of those two properties. Quality will make your object stand out, identify it as unique, which is attempted in name giving too. Quantity calls for a minimum ability to do arithmetic and differentiate in terms of size.

Specific is the object, if it is just one (in terms of spacetime parameters), and generic, it there are more than one of them in your focus. These features are there, they are part of finding a place/slot for an object in "your mental universe."

I cannot tell what sequence these operations take place, we have inference to rely on and logic to check out.What I am stressing is that there are several concurrent operations taking place and they all have a consequence, and they are associated. Depending on chunking, you may find that a single word may be enough to illustrate reasoning, whereas a syllogism for example may not be long enough to do the same.

Rich:

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.

 

FK Maybe.

 

Notice that I do not use concepts like partition, kind, type, etc. as they are not primitives to me. The primitives are still object, property and relation (associated with the dichotome facets above) and they are generated/produced by mental operations the proof for which is already available in dictionaries, lexicons, etc.

But the problem is that the items in those collections (and in other repertories) are sorted morphologically (lexically, or alphabetically) on forms (names, objects) whereas we want a sort on content (properties) which are not available even as a cross reference!! Why? because the way such objecst (concepts included) are generated and thus related is not documented - see  the debate on process vs structure. And behind that debate we have the problem of representing verbs (change, motion) in 2D, in a diagram, which by defintion is not fit for the job.

 

My best regards, ferenc 

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)