John, (01)
I am not addressing the loosness of the measurements (whether tea leaves,
entrails or your choice of instrument). The measurements are whatever they
actually represent independent of the clustering process. I am addressing
the method of performing classification based on a theory and measurements. (02)
The case is clear that people have different meanings for commonly used
words, and that it is unlikely that a reasonably complex ontology will be
free from such polysemy and subjectivity in its measured values OR in the
classifications of the four clusters. (03)
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 10:45 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Polysemy and Subjectivity in Ontolgies -
theHDBIexample (06)
Hi John, et al, (07)
Starting with the 439 subjects, each subject was represented by one set of
numerical measurements on axes within a multidimensional volume. The four
clusters agree with, and support, the theory of individual variance as
forming four locations within the multidimensional volume predicted by the
theory. (08)
Thus subjects in the four clusters can be organized into four classes of
individual behavior-sets measured by the instruments that gave each
numerical score. That is the standard method of defining classes from
groups of individual points in a multidimensional volume. (09)
So each subject that falls within one of the four clusters (say A) behaves
differently than subjects which fall into a different cluster of the four
(B, C or D). But the subjects of class A behave similarly to each other. (010)
Remember that vocabulary words were used as stimuli for the measurements.
The meaning of these vocabulary words MUST have been interpreted differently
by each of the four groups of subjects. Therefore individuals vary in their
understanding of these very common words. (011)
That supports my point that the individuals interpret even very common words
differently, and therefore an ontology based on language that is understood
differently by each subject. The probability of a monosemous ontology is
therefore very low, IMHO. (012)
-Rich (013)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (014)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 7:40 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Polysemy and Subjectivity in Ontolgies - the
HDBIexample (015)
On 11/5/2010 10:56 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> I'm interested in constructing ontologies from that initial condition of
> only measured data, not rules and relationships just yet (later in the
> ontology's development, we will add rules and relationships, but not
> just yet).
> Here is the study
>
> http://www.hbdi.com/uploads/100021_resources/100331.pdf (016)
As far as usefulness, I would give it a definite maybe for perhaps
something. There is an open-ended infinity of possibly useful
statistics, and the human brain uses many different ways of
reasoning and classifying anything and everything. Among the
various methods, I would guess that this one ranks pretty high up
on the list, several notches above throwing darts at a dartboard. (017)
Excerpts like the following indicate a deep research strategy
that is undoubtedly far better than tea leaves by themselves,
but probably not as good as an expert tea-leaf interpreter: (018)
From the HBDI report:
> Two tests ...
> were chosen after telephone communication with neuropsychologists
> ... were chosen to be related to holistic synthesizing abilities,
> supposedly of the right cerebral hemisphere.
> ... were selected as markers for integrated hemispheric abilities. (019)
In any case, if anybody is interested in excellent on-line tutorials
about the human brain, presented at levels for beginner, intermediate,
and advanced, I recommend the following web site at McGill University: (020)
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/ (021)
It's possible to jump into any of the subtopics at the beginner level
and move up to the advanced level. For many of the issues discussed
in Ontolog Forum, the topics under "Thought and Language" are quite
relevant. (And the tutorials are available in both English and French.) (022)
John (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|