[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Intentionality Best Practices

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:18:23 -0400
Message-id: <53875DCF.8080502@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 5/29/2014 9:24 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
> The thesis proposes we should try to develop a framework that can
> support many different ways that concepts can be represented, processed,
> and used to represent meanings, with natural language syntax being a
> primary way.    (01)

I agree. I'd also emphasize the "many different ways" (AKA paradigms).
Logic is important for KR, but I believe that the hope for a unified
formal foundation for AI, NLP, or any truly intelligent system is
a dead end.    (02)

For a collection of interesting paradigms that might contribute
something useful, see http://intelligence.org/research/    (03)

That web site has articles on many directions in AI, but the formal
guys are still trying to unify the world around a single paradigm.
Years ago, when I took Marvin Minsky's AI course, he made a point
that I still believe is critical:    (04)

Paraphrase of MM by JFS (quoted phrases are verbatim)
> Some AI researchers claim that "intelligence is a clear, bright light".
> But others believe that "intelligence is a kludge."  The  latter are
> on the right track.    (05)

I agree with qualifications:    (06)

  1. It's important to search for unifying principles that can relate
     multiple similar paradigms.  An example is Common Logic.    (07)

  2. It's also important to search for broad generalizations that can
     relate both the precise and the kludgy methods.  Examples include
     Minsky's Society of Mind and Peirce's semiotics.    (08)

  3. Natural languages -- which can express every paradigm from the most
     formal to the most kludgy -- are capable of stating and relating
     every paradigm from the most precise to the most vague or fuzzy.
     As an example, Wittgenstein's theory of language games shows how
     to relate multiple paradigms within a common framework.    (09)

Logicians have complained that Wittgenstein's later philosophy is
not as formal and elegant as his first book.  That's certainly true.
You can't have a unified formal theory that relates both formal and
informal methods.    (010)

John    (011)

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    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>