Your logic is sound, but the assumption you're
making is that there is only once set of concepts,
which you happen to be mapping to the Universe and
Everything. (01)
The pragmatic obstacle is your assumption that
there are *any* fixed number of concepts which are
shared by all healthy humans. That assumption
leaves out the examples of Fire, Women and
Dangerous Things (see below where that was
described). (02)
Empirical evidence convinces me, at least, that
there are concepts inside individual people, and
everyone's precise concept is a subjective
construction by that person based on that person's
experience, and in communicating with other, very
culturally similar, people, who do share a few,
and perhaps many, of the same concepts. (03)
This version requires extending John's "accordion"
effect onto concepts as well as onto words. As a
result, my experience in building knowledge based
systems of many kinds is that each user has a
distinct set of concepts, which said user adjusts
as little as possible. Adjusted concepts become
communicable with immediate others through
iterative attempts to understand them. (04)
The adjustment what has to be made by said user so
said user can work within the GUI and assumptions
behind the system. Users must also communicate
with outside interested parties about the system,
its operation, and its inputs, outputs, controls
and resources. (05)
-Rich (06)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 1:23 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of
words/concepts that cannot becomposed of others (08)
Dear All,
Whilst agreeing with John, I'd like to approach
this from the other end of
the telescope. First some basics:
1. For each concept there is a set of objects that
it describes.
2. A concept is primitive unless it is the
intersection of 2 or more other
concepts. (09)
The proposition is that there is some moderate set
of primitive concepts
such that there is no useful concept that cannot
be defined as the
intersection of that set of primitive concepts. (010)
Now consider the number of objects there are that
we might want to describe.
Consider our universe, the galaxies, planetary
systems, stars, planets,
moons, other bodies, parts of these, life,
molecules, atoms, subatomic
particles. Then there are all the other possible
universes, with unicorns
and so on. (011)
So you need to prove that there is a number of
primitive concepts, n, where
n is (a lot) less than infinity, such that it is
not possible to come up
with some useful set of all these objects that is
not the intersection of
some of those n concepts. (012)
It does not seem credible to me that there is any
such number, but I look
forward to seeing any proof that such a number
exists. (013)
Regards (014)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction
Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth
Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU. (015)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: 03 May 2014 19:54
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of
words/concepts that cannot be
composed of others (016)
Gregg, Tom, Pat C, and John B, (017)
GR
> Have you looked at Natural Semantic
Metalanguage?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_meta
language (018)
Yes. I cited Anna Wierzbicka's _Lingua Mentalis_
in my 1984 book, and I've
followed her other books over the years. I call
her primitives 'accordion
words' -- because you can stretch them and squish
them to fit anything you
please. (019)
They're useful. To quote my favorite philosopher,
C. S. Peirce:
> It is easy to speak with precision upon a
general theme. Only, one
> must commonly surrender all ambition to be
certain. It is equally
> easy to be certain. One has only to be
sufficiently vague. It is not
> so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly
certain at once about a
> very narrow subject. (CP 4.237) (020)
Again, I recommend that every reader of this list
*study* the paper "I don't
believe in word senses." Adam K and Sue A are
*professionals* in
lexicography and computational linguistics. They
know the difference
between accordion words and precise definitions.
Both can be useful for
different purposes, but it's important to know the
difference. (021)
TK
> I am looking for (I'm going to call it)
'fundamental concepts' and I
> am making the assumption that there is some
basic agreed level of
> definition of these concepts so we don't end up
in Physics and Chemistry. (022)
Brief answer: (023)
1. There is no "basic agreed level" whatsoever
-- NONE! (024)
2. The top level of an ontology *must* be vague
and underspecified.
It can be useful, but the real knowledge is
in the lower levels. (025)
3. Please remember that Cyc started out with the
assumption that a
formal ontology of the knowledge of a
high-school graduate could be
specified in 10 years. After 30 years and
over $100 million of
investment, Doug Lenat has emphasized that
all the real knowledge
is in the detailed low levels. The top level
is very vague and
underspecified. It cannot support any kind
of detailed reasoning. (026)
TK
> My criteria for 'fundamental concept' is that it
cannot be replaced by
> a semantic net-let that crosses the agreed
level. (027)
If that's your definition, then you're talking
about the empty set.
There is no concept or thought of any kind that
cannot be analyzed at a
deeper level. (028)
> So John S, to take your examples... (029)
I was just trying to give one-line examples. In
any case, the terms in your
analyses are accordion words. Please study that
paper by Adam K. (030)
JB
> as Lakoff shows us in "Women, Fire, and
Dangerous Things" the
> universals are different for different
linguistic environments...
> But it still comes down to what type of tasks
are facing. The "core"
> concepts for farming are very different from
those needed in the office. (031)
Yes! But I would avoid using the word 'core'
because it gives the mistaken
impression that some kind of core is possible.
But even for farming and
offices, the basic terms are accordion words.
Note how we use the
abbreviation 'cc' in our emails. In office-speak,
it used to mean 'carbon
copy'. When was the last time you saw a carbon
copy? (032)
PC
> according to Guo, the number of senses used **in
the definitions**
> average to less than 2. (033)
If so, Guo doesn't know how to define words or to
count definitions.
I suspect he was using those terms as accordion
words. If you stretch and
squeeze them enough, you can adapt them to almost
anything. (034)
But with every stretch and squeeze, you blur an
immense amount of info.
Please tell Guo to study Adam K's paper. Also
study the publications about
*microsenses* by Alan Cruse. A microsense is any
intermediate point as you
stretch and squeeze your accordion. (035)
PC
> If anyone knows of such a study, I would very
much like to get a pointer. (036)
I've given you many, many pointers over the years.
And I beg you to study
them until you reach enlightenment. For starters,
please reread
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal3.pdf and *follow*
every URL to every
reference in it. (037)
Those other goalX.pdf files are also surveys. You
have to dig into the
references until you get the point. Anything that
looks like or smells like
a primitive is probably an accordion word. (038)
John (039)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (040)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (041)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (042)
|