[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ali H <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:40:46 -0400
Message-id: <CADr70E2q6bzPjC6YuEuoKvhrg-sAJxijtP_rkMX9Y8x3fDDPsQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear John,

I would tend to agree with you that restricting (a) to only one type of representation seems too narrow.

That said, I'm not sure why there is this focus on "fundamental representations". In what I and you excerpted, neither BS, nor HL/RB make any claims about fundamental representations. 

It seems like a rabbit hole of a discussion.


On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:32 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ali, Steven, Ed,

That claim is a narrow view, which requires much more qualification:

Brian Cantwell Smith
> Any mechanically embodied intelligent process will be comprised of
> structural ingredients that a) we as external observers naturally take
> to represent a propositional account of the knowledge that the overall
> process exhibits, and b) independent of such external semantic
> attribution, play a formal but causal and essential role in engendering
> the behavior that manifests that knowledge.

I agree with Steven's criticisms, and I also agree with Ed's point:

> Ontologies are indeed representations of “a propositional account of
> knowledge”, but not necessarily knowledge exhibited by any particular process.

Brian CS stated his claim in his PhD dissertation of 1982.  But in the
same book in which it was reprinted, Levesque and Brachman made further

> There is no single best language, it is argued, only more or less
> interesting positions on the tradeoff.

As soon as you admit that there are multiple representations and
tradeoffs, that implies that no single representation of any kind
(propositional or whatever) can be fundamental.

But if so, what would be fundamental?  Many researchers in cognitive
science, ranging from Aristotle to modern neuroscience, would say
that imagery derived directly from perception is more fundamental.
(And 'imagery' includes versions from all senses, not just vision.)

Short summary:  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.


(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

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    (01)

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