Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 8:30
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
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