Dear Mark, (01)
I didn't mean that every infant has the SAME
vocabulary. In fact, the actual vocabulary has to
be learned through the infant's interactions with
more experienced agents - the infant is only
really born with a sound making apparatus and an
audio mapping of frequency versus intensity (the
cochleae). But every infant has some set of
distinguishable capabilities, whether objects,
actions, or some combination of the above. I have
given up the idea that the primitives are
universal, i.e. identical in all infants.
Instead, there is some initial state of each
infant X(0), probably encoded partly by genes,
partly by environment the infant is born into,
partly by learned culture as practiced by midwives
and doctors. From there on, the trajectory of the
growing agent is described in some more elaborate
system. (02)
-Rich (03)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark H Linehan
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 6:17 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR (05)
Regarding "... 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 ...." (06)
It is well known that different language groups
have varying number of
discrete concepts for things like types of snow or
shades of colors.
Similarly, different individuals, and groups of
individuals, have varying
capabilities for actions and hence varying
vocabularies of action.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that there can be a
fundamental ontology of
perception or of action. (07)
This is NOT an argument against the idea that "...
perception and action are
... the most fundamental objects." It IS an
argument against the idea that
there is some "... vocabulary ... for designating
perceptions and actions,
as initially present in the infant agent ...." (08)
Mark H. Linehan
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2014 3:21 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR (09)
Dear John, (010)
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. (011)
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. (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
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. (015)
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). (016)
Is that a fair summary?
-Rich (017)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (018)
-----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 (019)
Rich, (020)
The verb 'handle' is extremely vague (or at least
underspecified).
In most cases, it means, approximately, "do
something with". (021)
JFS
> 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. (022)
RC
> 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. (023)
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. (024)
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. (025)
John (026)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (027)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (028)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|