Dear Steven,
A minute ago, I sent you two papers off-line, which
you should have received by now.
You wrote:
We are looking at this
from different points of view. I am speaking below of the effectiveness of
language, both formally and informally. You are speaking of what Peirce calls
"semeiosis" and Solomonov is making assumptions about the medium, the
substrate - about which I have very different ideas.
Yes, the two substrates are different, but equally
important in representing the actual implementation of thought. Peirce emphasized
the signal/symbol conversion, but didn’t explain what was stored in the
observer’s brain, nor how the observer kept pairing the same signal to the same
symbol, or to its experience.
Solomonoff explained the storage of information (whether
signal or symbol) and showed how it could be compressed, which is essential for
storage and retrieval of signal and symbol. Though he had no more access to
the brain, he addressed another important problem of representing that
pairing.
Many people seem to think that by storing symbols
literally, they can recover and match signals with the associated symbols, but
nobody has been able yet to explain that association in observable terms. We
only know, for experimentally measured examples, what parts of the brain are
often paired with what evoked experiences they stimulate a subject with. But
to do that, we depend on our interpretation of what that symbol is, and what
the patient does to interpret it. We are guessing, not recording precise
pairings.
Solomonff’s theories, and Hutter’s more specifically mathematized
system of storage and retrieval, show a deeper explanation of how the stimulus information
(the signal) can be paired with the experience of the last time that signal was
experienced. He used different tools to tease apart which signals are
indistinguishable from which other signals. He also represented symbol storage
into distinguishable experiences.
So while the two are different views of the process,
they are both addressing important aspects of language processing, at least
IMHO. Your opinion may differ.
-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 Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:05 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis
We are looking at this from different points of view.
I am speaking below of the effectiveness of language, both formally and
informally. You are speaking of what Peirce calls "semeiosis" and
Solomonov is making assumptions about the medium, the substrate - about which I
have very different ideas.
In short, the storage substate of biophysics is unlike
the storage substrate of known computing machinery. But this seems likely to go
beyond the scope of this forum. In fact, biology is effectively the more
efficient medium in terms of effective density and energy requirements. You
can't think of biophysics or natural intelligence architectures as you think of
"imbued intelligence" and electrical engineering in modern computing
systems - although it is everyones hammer today. I'll elaborate only if pushed
to do so.
I'll be happy to look at the paper you suggest, so
please send it to me.
Best regards,
Steven
On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Rich Cooper"
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Steven,
>
> You wrote:
>
> I assume that by "compression" here you
mean "abbreviation." "Compression" is only effective if it
is unambiguous - so in language design it is important to be able to formally
transform the short form into an unambiguous form.
>
> Regards,
> Steven
>
> I was using the word “compression” in the same
way as Marcus Hutter, who carried Solomonov’s idea that intelligence is
compressed experience. Whether that compression is ambiguous or not, the
compressed representation helps the agent relate present situations to stored
(compressed) situations so that lessons learned in previous situations can be
considered in new, similar, situations.
>
> My background in control theory (all those years
ago in grad school) fits his rendition of how this process works in the brain.
It may not be so familiar to you in those terms if you are thinking of lossless
storage. I think the brain is able to process lossy storage of situations
through its cortical columns and the wiring among them, but who the h knows?
>
> I can email you a copy of his paper if you
request it.
>
> -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 Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:11 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
>
>
> Dear Rich,
>
> This is a valid point I think.
>
> I assume that by "compression" here you
mean "abbreviation." "Compression" is only effective if it
is unambiguous - so in language design it is important to be able to formally
transform the short form into an unambiguous form.
>
> Regards,
> Steven
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2013, at 1:39 PM, "Rich Cooper"
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Since the primary topic of this forum is
ontology, I found a very relevant quote from Simon Spero’s link to SWH in
Wikipedia:
> >
> > The categories and types that we isolate
from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every
observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a
kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and
this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up,
organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because
we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that
holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our
language.
> >
> > This seems related to the “engineering
language” phenomenon noted by Steven Ericsson-Zenith regarding such languages
as Lisp and C, and how their user communities differ.
> >
> > So the proper conclusion, IMHO, is that the
“categories and types” that Sapir noted as “staring each observer in the face”
are subjected to the compression effects of each language as practiced. C
emphasizes the procedural, but in fact any declarative structure in Lisp can
also be represented in C, though less compactly. So in C it is easier, and
more compressed, to write procedural code, while Lisp offers a more compact
representation of declarations, and a somewhat foggier representation of
procedures.
> >
> > I suppose that early peoples would have
placed a high value on compression of language, since speech during a hunt
would have risked losing the hunted critter. The emphasis of compressed
structures would have had evolutionary value, and hence would have affected the
way we descended from the most cost-effective speakers rather than from the
more prosaically inclined.
> >
> > Personally, I prefer Delphi
and Lisp to most others, such as Prolog or COBOL or FORTRAN. The elegance of
my preferred two is what draws me; either Delphi
(with its elaborate component set) or Lisp (with its flowery expressiveness)
can support elegant programming.
> >
> > Elegant programming can support discussions
of the correctness of the program among programmers more easily than obfuscated
programs in inelegant languages. Since this form of language is important to
us in modern usage, more important than the deeper compression I suspect early
peoples used, I prefer it.
> >
> > -Rich
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Rich Cooper
> > EnglishLogicKernel.com
> > Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> > 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:25 PM
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
> >
> >
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#Who
> >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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