Thank you for the papers. My immediate response to them is that they are a
kitchen sink of well-known and not always relevant ideas. (01)
There are just a few basic questions to answer to simplify this problem.
Principal among these is, in fact, a decision problem. It is the problem of
making responsive decisions across large-scale structures - something that
biophysics does for a low regular power requirement at any scale (it's not free
but it is essentially constant for any scale) versus energy requirements that
scale by some factor as the problem scales in current computing hardware. (02)
A nice example of this can be seen in any Exascale proposal of the past few
years. (03)
The related problem I call the "general recognition problem." By which I am
referring to the capacity of biology to recognize complex inputs quickly and at
low power, i.e., biology recognizes more effectively and efficiently than
computers read a 64 bit word. (04)
Solve these fundamental problems and the rest will follow. (05)
Regards,
Steven (06)
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (07)
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|