Just a comment on one of John's notes: (01)
[JS] >I believe that statistics are useful as a supplement to symbolic
>representations. But you can't represent semantics with just statistics. (02)
I agree, but in the context of natural language understanding, I think that a
useful collaboration between statistics and logic would parallel the "Thinking
Fast and Slow" model of Kahneman, where the (fast) intuitive pattern-matching
of language input presents candidates as possible interpretations, which then
need the (slow) logical process to determine whether a preliminary
interpretation makes sense in the current context. For optimum performance,
both components are useful and perhaps necessary. Of course, the brain does it
all so fluently that even the logical process may be unconscious. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
1-908-561-3416 (05)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 4:07 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Computer science ontology vs. philosophical
>ontology again
>
>Avril,
>
>Every ontology has some built-in philosophical assumptions.
>To quote Peirce,
>
>CSP
>> Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any
>> metaphysics... and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly
>> vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which they
>> are packed.
>
>AS
>> Does anyone know how the contemporary linguistic philosophy
>> contributes to automated natural language understanding?
>
>Two points:
>
> 1. It contributed a huge amount to the Carnap-Kripke-Chomsky-Montague
> strand of formal linguistics.
>
> 2. But Einstein criticized Russell's "Angst vor der Metaphysik" as
> a dead end for science. That criticism also applies to point #1.
> See http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
>
>During the 1980s and '90s, many people tried to apply those theories to
>practical NLP. But none of them were practical. Unfortunately, that failure
>caused the NLP pendulum to swing to statistical methods that reject logic-
>based methods completely -- or almost completely.
>
>One example (among many) is Bob Moore. He wrote his dissertation and
>many papers about logic-based methods. But he switched to the statistical
>methods when he joined Microsoft Research around 2001, and he's
>continuing those methods at Google Research.
>
>I believe that statistics are useful as a supplement to symbolic
>representations. But you can't represent semantics with just statistics. For
>my recommended approach, see the following article and the papers cited at
>the end:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/eg2cg.pdf
>
>AS
>> When we order the computer to list all red objects, the computer
>> lists all members of the class red. This is useful in the linguistic
>> sense
>
>No, it's not.
>
>AS
>> but over-propagating the class approach is not practical, as Putnam
>> testifies: “Let us, then, keep our properties, while not in any way
>> despising the useful work performed for us by our classes!”
>
>Putnam's article is a good source of some useful criticisms:
>
> Putnam, Hilary (1970) On properties, reprinted in Putnam (1975),
> _Philosophical Papers_, vol 1, _Mathematics: Matter and Method_,
> Chicago: University Press, pp. 305-322.
>
>He begins by citing some of his good buddies, but he continues with what I
>believe is a devastating criticism of their assumptions.
>
>HP, op. cit. p. 305
>> It has been maintained by such philosophers as Quine and Goodman that
>> purely 'extensional' language suffices for all the purposes of
>> properly formalized scientific discourse...
>
>Putnam continues with a discussion of physical properties. But he later
>discusses "psychological" properties:
>
>HP, p. 313
>> I am inclined to hold the view that psychological properties would be
>> reduced not to physical properties in the usual sense..., but to
>> _functional states_... [For example,] the property of being a finite
>> automaton with a certain machine table...
>
>As the example illustrates, Putnam's "psychological properties" are more
>computer-like than human-like. But if the extensional approach is
>inadequate for a computer-like psychology, it would be even worse for
>supporting human-like psychology or language based on it.
>
>The following slides say a bit more about some of the issues:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/vague.pdf
>
>The concluding slide is copied below. See also Slides 10 and 11 about
>reasoning with images. This topic is related to the eg2cg.pdf article cited
>above.
>
>John
>__________________________________________________________
>______
>
> CONCLUSIONS
>
>The mapping from language to the world uses all the capabilities of human
>intelligence and experience.
>
>The model-theoretic semantics for logic is too rigid:
>● A finite set of symbols with fixed definitions.
>● Two-valued denotations {T, F}.
>● A formal algorithm for computing the denotations.
>
>A fixed set of word senses can be useful for a specialized task.
>
>But no fixed set of senses defined by a fixed ontology can support the
>flexibility of human language and reasoning.
>
>More generally, no discrete set of ontological categories can adequately
>represent a continuously variable world.
>
>Dynamic methods are needed to extend, revise, and supplement the logic
>and ontology.
>
>__________________________________________________________
>_______
>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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|