ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundations for Ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rob Freeman <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:52:30 +0800
Message-id: <CAKAf4GjgGROW4j8tw6bgKFt_cv8PdDpRvUzFxHRZazDJK6hzVg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

Define "subjective" that way if you like.    (02)

On the subject of foundational issues. Here's a website I found just
this week (via a random search for "vector language models" on Google+
of all things):    (03)

http://artificial-intuition.com/    (04)

I submit it for the broader information of the Ontolog community, as a
separate development along similar themes to my own (without the
"intuition" label please, but hey, labels have their place.)    (05)

-Rob    (06)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:58 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 5:28 AM, Rob Freeman wrote:
>> Good luck selling your software John. I always respect your
>> advocacy for subjectivity in logical representations.
>
> Thanks.
>
> But I want to emphasize that I did not use the words subjective
> or subjectivity. �In one sense, anything that anybody thinks is
> subjective to them. �But neuroscience and psycholinguistics can be
> just as objective as any other science. �I cited them to explain
> how the framework is related to what happens inside the brain.
>
> In any case, I wanted to summarize why meaning (as processed in
> the human brain or a computer system) cannot be represented by
> statistical vectors, such as LSA:
>
> �1. Children and adults can begin to use a word correctly on the
> � � first occasion that they hear it. They can use it even though
> � � they have no backlog of statistical data. (See slide 44 of
> � � http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/ontofound.pdf )
>
> �2. As people learn to use the word in more "language games"
> � � (or contexts or sublanguages), the word acquires a new
> � � "microsense" for every game. �(See slides 39 to 42.)
>
> �3. The fact that people can create new microsenses implies
> � � that they must have some basis for meaning that is prior
> � � to and more fundamental than the accumulated statistics.
>
> �4. Statistical methods, such as LSA and others, can be useful
> � � for finding an appropriate language game (or context), but
> � � the statistical vectors are not the basis for meaning.
>
> �5. Implementing the full complexity of the human body and brain
> � � would be necessary for using language in exactly the same
> � � way that people do, but good approximations for many useful
> � � "language games" can be and have been implemented on digital
> � � computers. (See slides 60 and 75 to 105.)
>
> There is nothing subjective about that argument. �In effect, I'm
> proposing a kind of model-theoretic semantics, but one that is
> much more dynamic than Tarski's and resembles human usage more
> closely and naturally.
>
> John
>
> PS: If you're using the Adobe reader, you don't have to page through
> the slides, just type the page number in the little window.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>