Rich & All, (01)
I assume from the subject line, Rich, when you use the abbreviation
"SIO" that you meant "Self Interest Ontology." (02)
I want to highlight the fact that "SIO" is, in fact, a project some of
those in this community is already engaged in, called "Sharing and
Integrating Ontologies (SIO)" - ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies
which was started back in 2009 (by JohnSowa.) (03)
Since the SIO project predates the discussion on "Self Interest
Ontology," (unless there is serious objection) let us reserve the SIO
acronym for the "Sharing and Integrating Ontologies" project on the
ontolog mailing lists, to avoid confusion, as much as we can. (04)
Thanks & regards. =ppy (05)
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
-- (06)
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Rich Cooper
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear SIO-interested posters,
>
> I found this posting on the ISRE list, which describes how certain emotions
> are tied to self interest in a conversation. I think this could shed some
> light on Doug's view of "interest" in a way that fits the SIO:
>
> If there is a topic, it means there is a conversation. The conversation is
> with another person, with whom one is in some kind of relationship. One or
> the other party in the conversation will feel anger if the tenor of the
> conversation implies that there is something defective or unworthy or wrong
> or culpable or immoral or stupid or the like about that person.
>
> RC:> Note how this addresses the PERSON not the topic of conversation, and
> it addresses the manner of communication instead of the underlying
> concepts.
>
> Religion and politics are topics that frequently instigate anger since
> opposing opinion often implies defect, unworthiness, wrong-headedness,
> culpability, immorality, stupidity, etc. Such imputations of unworthiness
> lead to a sense of deprivation of one’s right to attention, respect,
> consideration and the like from the other party. The basic premise here is
> that all there is the relationship between the parties and that the
> relationship between the parties is usefully and importantly understood to
> be based in large part on the degree of attention, respect, consideration,
> etc. that the parties provide each other.
>
> Conversation about any topic that leads to a sense of loss of these benefits
> from the other party can thus engender anger. Anger is an evolutionarily
> programmed response to this kind of loss. The emotion creates an
> action-readiness to engage in acts that punish the other party so that
> he/she does not again act to deprive the angered person of relational
> benefits (attention, respect, etc.).
>
> For elaboration of these ideas, see:
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, “Power and Status and the Power-Status Theory of
> Emotions,” in Turner and Stets, Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions
> (2006).
>
> Theodore D. Kemper, Status, Power and Ritual Interaction. Ashgate (2011).
>
> RC:>These ideas should be reflected somehow in Doug's initial ontology,
> though so far we have no concept about distinguishing among the selves
> involved in the conversation.
>
> HTH,
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:42 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural Languages
>
> Let me propose that it is SUBJECTIVITY i.e. a
>
> proper understanding of self interest, that I
>
> think is missing.
>
> We have been seduced by the 'unreasonable success
>
> of mathematics' in solving problems in a
>
> supposedly objective world, as Somebody said. We
>
> need to overcome our self satisfaction at how well
>
> math has worked and look in a different direction.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>
> Behalf Of Rich Cooper
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:30 PM
>
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the links, but that isn't what I am
>
> interested in; I'm more focused on WHY Cyc (and
>
> other approaches to developing massive knowledge
>
> bases) is thought by so many to have failed, e.g.,
>
> Genesereth for example.
>
> Before the Cyc project started, the common view
>
> given full imprimaturitan status in the research
>
> community was that it was KNOWLEDGE that was
>
> lacking for full AI, and only THAT was keeping AI
>
> from universal suffrage.
>
> I am looking for opinions by people who might know
>
> as to WHY that assumption was clearly so wrong.
>
> Knowledge is NOT enough, and that has been clearly
>
> demonstrated by Cyc's lack of demonstrated value
>
> in universality of intelligence.
>
> Small, highly focused projects, such as the blocks
>
> world and its successful linguistic manipulation
>
> as per Terry Winograd's (admitted) kluge, and the
>
> surprisingly good results from very simple (also
>
> kludged) chatbots such as Parry, and the
>
> Somebody's Prize demonstrating lack of scalability
>
> of said chatbots, shows SOMETHING. But what KIND
>
> of something?
>
> More study of Cyc seems to belong to the same
>
> viewpoint as theocratic studies of angel densities
>
> and pinheads, the viscosity of ether, and mappings
>
> of magnetic fields in thousands of points.
>
> Instead, the Einsteinian approach of novel - dare
>
> I say subjective -interpretations (in his case, of
>
> the Michelson-Morley results) seems to be what is
>
> most clearly lacking at this point in time.
>
> Why DON'T huge hunks of deduced, induced, abduced
>
> and reduced knowledge suffice? What is still
>
> lacking? Why don't gobs of special purpose
>
> functionality, coupled with gobs of knowledge, do
>
> the trick?
>
> Why DO simple approaches work so well at small
>
> scales?
>
> Why DON't simple approaches scale well?
>
> Why DOESN't a simple chatbot with Cyc on its back
>
> suffice to convince observers in a Turing test?
>
> In the fifties or so, game theory was developing.
>
> Turing came up with a biological explanation of
>
> what would be called the hox genes to form complex
>
> biological strata. Lately, we have learned that
>
> there are only some 20,000 genes which are
>
> adequate for making a human bean, but that leaves
>
> out a LOT of so called JUNK DNA, meaning genetic
>
> structures we still don't have a clue about.
>
> Those are the kinds of new ideas that need to be
>
> reduced to practice. And that is why the patent
>
> form, with one advance teaching AGAINST prior art,
>
> seems interesting to me as a model of how to take
>
> the next steps.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>
> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:41 AM
>
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural
>
> Languages
>
> Rich,
>
> Some comments:
>
> JFS
>
>>> About a dozen years ago, I was talking with
>
> Mike Genesereth,
>
>>> who said "Lenat is probably the only one who
>
> doesn't know that
>
>>> Cyc has failed."
>
> RC
>
>> That is the kind of thinking that all of us show
>
> in one form or
>
>> another. We seem stuck in our structured ways
>
> after the first four
>
>> decades or six, unable to overthrow the past
>
> beliefs and institute
>
>> new untried ones.
>
> Genesereth has been one of the strongest
>
> proponents of classical
>
> logic-based AI. He has been teaching at Stanford
>
> for years in
>
> close collaboration with the same people
>
> (McCarthy, Feigenbaum,
>
> Fikes, etc.) as Lenat. Any success stories from
>
> Cyc would have
>
> provided more attention (and funding) for all
>
> kinds of projects
>
> that used logic-based AI. But Mike G. was being
>
> realistic. I
>
> would qualify his comment, but I certainly
>
> couldn't refute it.
>
> In my 1984 book, I tried to take a balanced view
>
> of the strengths
>
> and limitations of logic-based systems. My view
>
> then (and with
>
> more input since then) has been that logic-based
>
> systems are
>
> important, especially for applications to comp.
>
> sci., but that
>
> NLP systems must include logic-based approaches as
>
> a proper subset:
>
> 1. Large numbers of applications in computer
>
> systems, database
>
> systems, programming systems, and
>
> hardware/software design,
>
> require a foundation in formal logic.
>
> 2. Natural languages can be used in very precise
>
> ways (for
>
> example, along the lines of controlled NLs),
>
> but they
>
> can also be used in very scruffy, very
>
> informal ways.
>
> 3. The overwhelming volume of NL speech and
>
> documents use
>
> highly informal, often ungrammatical, and
>
> "innovative"
>
> language. (I'm using "innovative" as a
>
> neutral term
>
> for what many people would call "incorrect".)
>
> 3. I also agree with the comment by Alan Perlis
>
> that you
>
> can't translate informal language to formal
>
> language by
>
> any formal algorithm.
>
> 4. I believe that you can interpret highly
>
> informal language
>
> by computer, but that you need to use huge
>
> amounts of
>
> background knowledge (i.e., extralinguistic
>
> information)
>
> to do so.
>
> 5. Point #4 is acknowledged by classical
>
> logic-based AI projects
>
> such as Cyc. But they assume that you need a
>
> long gestation
>
> period that depends on hand-coded logical
>
> representations
>
> (e.g., formal ontologies and knowledge bases).
>
> 6. The scruffies, such as Roger Schank, disputed
>
> that claim
>
> from the early days (1960s). But they didn't
>
> have the
>
> facilities for acquiring, storing, and using
>
> such large
>
> volumes of information.
>
> 7. The hardware today is more than adequate to
>
> store and
>
> process the huge volumes of information
>
> needed to support
>
> point #6. One example is the IBM Watson
>
> project, but
>
> there are other projects that have achieved
>
> comparable
>
> success with more modest hardware resources.
>
> The
>
> VivoMind applications I summarized are among
>
> them.
>
>> I don't see much of anything discussed about Cyc
>
> past the
>
>> precursors I mentioned anywhere in the public
>
> literature;
>
>> I'm not referring to tutorials about Cyc, but
>
> about analyses.
>
> For the research publications, see
>
> http://cyc.com/cyc/technology/pubs
>
> For free downloads of the ontology and supporting
>
> software:
>
> http://opencyc.org/
>
> I believe that there are many useful applications
>
> of Cyc and OpenCyc,
>
> but I also believe that a different architecture
>
> is necessary to
>
> achieve something that could be called natural
>
> language understanding.
>
> That is what I have been discussing in talks,
>
> publications, and emails.
>
> John
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> _______________
>
> Message Archives:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> Config Subscr:
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>
> orum/
>
> 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?WikiHomePa
>
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|