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)
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)
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.
> 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.
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)