Azamat and Rich, (01)
Theory and practice are both important. I don't want to minimize
the value of a good theory, but I also want to emphasize that people
survived for thousands of years without the guidance of formal theories
of self interest. (02)
AA
> I'd say a bit more: no top ontology, no fundamental solution for a problem. (03)
RC
> We need a simpler, more fundamental way to model interest than
> has so far been discussed - a kind of Newton's laws for motivation. (04)
I am very suspicious of that word 'fundamental'. My uncle Al never
studied Maxwell's equations, but he had a good business in repairing
TVs. If I had a problem with the TV, I'd call uncle Al rather than
a theoretical physicist. (05)
What is better? A successful repair by Al? Or a "fundamental" attempt
by a physicist who never saw the insides of a TV set? (06)
As examples of language use, I often cite the following sentences
by a child named Laura shortly before her third birthday: (07)
Here’s a seat. It must be mine if it’s a little one.
I want this doll because she’s big.
When I was a little girl I could go "geek-geek" like that.
But now I can go "this is a chair." (08)
See http://webster.unh.edu/~jel/JLimber/Genesis_complex_sentences.pdf (09)
Laura correctly used a wider range of modal language than Montague had
formalized, and I doubt that Montague grammar would help her in any way. (010)
RC
> We need a simpler, more fundamental way to model interest than
> has so far been discussed...
> Perhaps we should consider Pavlov's ways of simplifying the situation... (011)
There's been over a century of research since Pavlov's dogs, and even
dog's are vastly more complex than stimulus-response models can explain.
For a summary of cognitive models with references to other work, see (012)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/ca4cs.pdf (013)
As I keep saying, starting with a simplified theory is guaranteed
to produce toy solutions to toy problems. Montague grammar is an
example of a brilliant, but useless toy. It is *not* fundamental. (014)
If you start with a big problem, you might need to simplify it,
but it's impossible know in advance what aspects to discard,
simplify, or generalize. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|