[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Body Parts and Early-Learned Verbs

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:44:36 -0400
Message-id: <CAMhe4f2xw_P0CjadLYCzSNu0_CQ6Se3ON7HXrCnMG-4_9FGRaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I don't quite agree with this:
> But many of these ideas (as well as Piaget's) are built on top
> of pre-IIWW European naive physics and Gestalt movement.

The Gestalt Theory provided a useful discussion of parts and wholes, but there was a tendency to claim that some perceptual groupins were innate:
"Grouping principles pervade virtually all perceptual experiences because they determine the
objects and parts we perceive in the environment. Gestalt psychology has claimed that all Gestalt
laws are innate and that learning or past experience can never play a role

Wagemans, Johan, et al. "A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization." (2012).

Piaget was many things, but not a cognitive nativist.  So he was not one to easily adopt this idea of innate perceptual groupings. Piaget was better characterized as  a stage theory developmentalist in which various forms of learning played the key role.  In part because of his ideas on active learning, modern constructionists claim he as their own. As he said. "Intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself"  That active role of intellect is front and center in Piaget.

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies    
Potomac, MD

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aldo, Gary, Hassan, Mike, Ray, and William,

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:

  1. History of ideas in philosophy, science, and engineering.

  2. Scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, evaluation).

  3. Computational methods in AI, NLP, and robotics.

  4. Engineering standards to support interoperability.

> But many of these ideas (as well as Piaget's) are built on top
> of pre-IIWW European naive physics and Gestalt movement.

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.

> 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...

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.

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."

> 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...

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).

>> 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.

> Would you consider BMM (Business Motivation Model) by OMG as a starting point...

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.

> the ISO enterprise language is indeed based on speech act concepts.

That's an example where there is some cross-fertilization.


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>