[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:20:32 -0700
Message-id: <063a01cfdf3f$1b97f170$52c7d450$@englishlogickernel.com>
Dear John,    (01)

By "handle" I probably should have said
"designate".  I am thinking of the handle (a
pointer) you use in a program to indicate the base
location of an object type.  The point is, that in
looking for fundamentals among human-like
behaviors, you suggested that perception and
action are possibly the most fundamental objects.
Therefore I suggest that the vocabulary of
sentences communicating among the agents would
have names for designating perceptions and
actions, as initially present in the infant agent,
prior to learning.  Learning will add new words to
the kernel vocabulary, layer by layer.      (02)

Present technology is fairly good at detecting
perceptions of more objective physical realities,
but not at reading psychosocial scenes.  Present
perceiving capabilities are not up to human levels
in many areas, beyond human levels in other, and
will remain so dimorphic for the foreseeable
future.  But they are there, and can be embodied
into any agent you may choose to build.      (03)

Actions, by humans, were beautifully shaped by
evolution into smooth, minimal energy-consuming,
coordinated movements of the agents effectors,
with feedback from the agent's sensors.  When we
evolved to plan and execute more complex actions,
the new actions  were built as combinations on top
of the kernel actions.      (04)

Therefore the infant Kernel of the agent, prior to
learning, should include a vocabulary of each and
every perception, and each and every action, plus
a pool of constants, variables and constraints
among them, as imposed by the agent on the
environment, and by the environment on the agent.    (05)

Learning, based on interaction with knowledge
sources (humans, patents, databases, social
networks,...), would of course introduce more and
more new words.  Within the realm of patent
databases, if word A is called out in a claim,
only As will do.  No Bs can just be freely
substituted without demonstrating that B is a true
synonym of A, or is an effective equivalent to A
according to the doctrine of equivalents.      (06)

So starting with a vocabulary of objects (as
perceived) and actions (as perceived) in claim
sentences, the vocabulary can grow in layers from
the Kernel vocabulary up to nearly anything that
is lexically distinguishable.  I call each layer a
"context", and the IDEF0 model of that context
introduces all the constants, variables and
constraints which connect that context to its
partitions and to its immediate parent context(s).    (07)

Is that a fair summary?
-Rich    (08)

Rich Cooper
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (09)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 10:59 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR    (010)

Rich,    (011)

The verb 'handle' is extremely vague (or at least
In most cases, it means, approximately, "do
something with".    (012)

> Any propositional representation in any
language,natural or artificial,
> is an approximation that is based on some
"interesting position on the
> tradeoff".  But there is no limit to the number
and kinds of tradeoffs
> for different purposes.  Peirce's "twin gates"
of perception and action
> determine the symbol grounding for any and all
representations.    (013)

> Then you seem to believe that perception and
action (i.e., embodied agent
> with such) handle all designation of the
vocabulary used to describe what
> was perceived and what action(s) were performed.    (014)

The discussions about symbol grounding ask how
words and other symbols
relate to the world, directly or indirectly.
Peirce, Wittgenstein,
and others said that the meaning is based on or
derived from the
way those symbols are related to perception and
action.    (015)

For concrete words like 'dog' or 'jump', the
connections are direct.
For abstractions like 'justice', the connections
are more complex
and indirect.  But to be meaningful, an abstract
concept like Justice
must have some implications for the way people
perceive situations and
act within them.    (016)

John    (017)

Message Archives:
Config Subscr:
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join:
ge#nid1J    (018)

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    (019)

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