Aldo, Gary, Hassan, Mike, Ray, and William, (01)
I'd like to emphasize that the following studies are independent,
but related. They can be helpful for inspiring or motivating one
another, but they have different goals and criteria for success: (02)
1. History of ideas in philosophy, science, and engineering. (03)
2. Scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, evaluation). (04)
3. Computational methods in AI, NLP, and robotics. (05)
4. Engineering standards to support interoperability. (06)
AG
> But many of these ideas (as well as Piaget's) are built on top
> of pre-IIWW European naive physics and Gestalt movement. (07)
There was a lot of influence and cross-fertilization. Piaget
began his studies before the war, but he could continue during
the war because Switzerland was neutral. (08)
GBC
> The Piagetian idea that high-level, abstract cognitive competences can
> be grounded & bootstrapped from sensorimotor behavior is an ongoing frame
> for developmental hypotheses. It may also be worth noting that it serves
> to frame work within several newly emerging & overlapping research field
> known variously as “embodied artificial intelligence,” “embodied cognition,”
> “developmental robotics,” or “epigenetic robotics... (09)
Since they prohibited any talk about what happens inside the head,
the behaviorists had nothing to offer AI researchers who were trying
to simulate what happens inside the head. The pioneers in AI, such as
Minsky, Simon, Newell, etc., cited many of the European psychologists,
since the US behaviorists had no models they could use. (010)
Piaget (1974) quoted by HAK
> "... it is clear that the internal functioning of intelligent assimilation...
> is constantly reinforced by the causal situations in which the anticipations
> are followed by effective controls (the success or failure of the swinging
> depending on whether the hanging object was really a mobile or not, etc.).
>
> This does not mean that all the immediate inferences of the preoperational
> levels have a causal content. They can serve as classifiers." (011)
GBC
> Anticipation seems like an important cognitive component and support
> an infant’s drive for sensorimotor control. A study by Schlesinger
> et al (2000) suggests that control is neither natively wired nor
> the result of exhaustive trial and error learning... (012)
Otto Selz developed his theory of *schematic anticipation* in the 1920s.
Adriaan de Groot applied Selz's theories in his psychological studies
of chess players, which he published in _Thought and Choice in Chess_.
Newell & Simon invited de Groot to spend a year at CMU, where he
influenced much of the AI work there: Ross Quillian cited Selz in
his dissertation _Semantic Memory_ (1966). Newell & Simon cited
Selz in their book _Human Problem Solving_ (1972). (013)
MB
>> It seems to me that for ontologies that are relevant to businesses, there
>must be
>> a similar but separate grounding requirement, to that of a child or other
>mammal. (014)
RM
> Would you consider BMM (Business Motivation Model) by OMG as a starting
>point... (015)
The scientific issues about how the brain works, the AI issues about
simulating the brain, and the engineering issues about specifying a
useful ontology are very different. But there are often indirect,
but helpful influences. (016)
WF
> the ISO enterprise language is indeed based on speech act concepts. (017)
That's an example where there is some cross-fertilization. (018)
John (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|