|From:||Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:54:31 -0500|
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But not everyone uses Adobe Reader. I looked at your slides by clicking on the link and viewing it in my browser, which doesn't use the Adobe plugin.
In any case, slide 23 leaves open the option that the model could
That is far from obvious. Seems to me that "Human(Sowa)" (and a corresponding model thereof containing you and the property of being human) gets the world exactly right as far as it goes. More complex cases can be understood accordingly. But I don't wish to debate this point.
To represent any chunk of the physical world perfectly, we'd need
Who said anything about exact representation? My claim is only that models/theories can get the world right as far as they go.
That would run into quantum mechanical effects, and an
It's a stupid slogan. Models are useful (typically) because they get the world right to some extent, at some level of granularity. If that weren'tt so, their usefulness would be a complete mystery.
Of course, but that doesn't really alter the point.
> ... through the magic of Gödel coding, any theory containing a bit
any relevance to AI, NLP, cognitive science, or applications of ontology
to the areas that Ontolog Forum addresses.
It was just an example of a language that likes of which you seemed to be saying didn't exist. Obviously, you wouldn't use Gödel coding to represent naming in a more practical, real-world environment.
Then you are belying what I took you to be saying before. I said that languages containing alleged semantic predicates that aren't formalized are like box/arrow diagrams where the intended semantics are only in the minds of the users. And you replied "Absolutely! That is all we can ever have in our computers...." I took that to mean that you can't formalize semantic predicates. But perhaps I misunderstood.
You are really missing the point. The sorts of problems illustrated most simply and dramatically in the Liar Paradox arise in far more practical KR environments. A good example is in the theory of contexts. Suppose you are in context C1 and you want it to be able to represent, in C1, that something FOO is the case in context C2. Let's use McCarthy's "ist" predicate:
(ist (C1, ist(FOO, C2)))
This is exactly the kind of thing you want an account of contexts to be able to express. But "ist" is a semantic predicate and it is very easy to generate liar-like paradoxes with it. The question is then critical: Given that we want to implement a theory of contexts in a KR environment, how do we manage this theoretically? Do we restrict the language? How do we do so without robbing ourselves of the very expressive power we looked to a theory of contexts to provide? Do we restrict the logic? How do we do so without robbing ourselves of the ability to make the sorts of inferences we need to be able to make? These are profoundly difficult practical questions of knowledge representation.
Sounds like an interesting sketch of a germ of an idea. Where's the theory?
I have never seen any document written by people who are trying to
Perhaps when it comes to truth that is the case but, as noted, the problem is much more broad and general.
The only exceptions are the 0.000001% of documents written by
Comments like that sound like the kind of disease that Wittgenstein
I'm disappointed that you are taking the same low road that others in this forum have taken in response to certain theoretical challenges: in place of informed argument, simply a haughty dismissal of "philosophers" in their ivory towers by the wise and experienced real-world practitioner. It also means that reasoned debate is at an end.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|