John,
I agree, also. We are on much the same page.
Phil
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:18:23 -0400
> From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Intentionality Best Practices
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> For a collection of interesting paradigms that might contribute
> something useful, see http://intelligence.org/research/
>
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
> I agree with qualifications:
>
> 1. It's important to search for unifying principles that can relate
> multiple similar paradigms. An example is Common Logic.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>