Dear Rich, (01)
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. (02)
The pragmatic obstacle is your assumption that there are *any* fixed number
of concepts which are shared by all healthy humans. (03)
[MW>] Where did I make that assumption? I agree that different people have
different (perhaps only slightly) internal models. Those are just some of
the concepts that need to be accommodated (plus all the others anyone could
reasonably have). (04)
That assumption leaves out the examples of Fire, Women and Dangerous Things
(see below where that was described). (05)
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. (06)
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. (07)
[MW>] As soon as you adjust them (i.e. the set of members is different) they
are strictly a different concept. I'm specifically trying to get away from
anything as loose as words or phrases, and just deal with distinct primitive
concepts that in combination can define all the useful sets of things anyone
(and everyone) could possibly find useful across this universe and all other
possible universes, ever. You can either come up with a specific moderately
finite number, or you can't. Personally, I can't, and will be (very)
surprised if anyone else can.
As soon as we can agree that there is no such number (less than infinity) we
can stop worrying about what the number might be. (08)
Regards
Matthew West (09)
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. (010)
-Rich (011)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (012)
-----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 (013)
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. (014)
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. (015)
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. (016)
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. (017)
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. (018)
Regards (019)
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. (020)
-----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 (021)
Gregg, Tom, Pat C, and John B, (022)
GR
> Have you looked at Natural Semantic
Metalanguage?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_meta
language (023)
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. (024)
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) (025)
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. (026)
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. (027)
Brief answer: (028)
1. There is no "basic agreed level" whatsoever
-- NONE! (029)
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. (030)
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. (031)
TK
> My criteria for 'fundamental concept' is that it
cannot be replaced by
> a semantic net-let that crosses the agreed
level. (032)
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. (033)
> So John S, to take your examples... (034)
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. (035)
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. (036)
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? (037)
PC
> according to Guo, the number of senses used **in
the definitions**
> average to less than 2. (038)
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. (039)
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. (040)
PC
> If anyone knows of such a study, I would very
much like to get a pointer. (041)
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. (042)
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. (043)
John (044)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (045)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (046)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (047)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (048)
|