I just found a great paper by Tom Scheff of UCSB
on the various ways investigators have named
emotions, defined their operational measurement
and so on. The paper is here:
http://qix.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/22/10
77800414550462.full.pdf?ijkey=lGXNYyxdIz5Ksor&keyt
ype=finite (01)
This should be grist for an emotion ontology,
which perhaps would be based on one person's
(Scheff's) opinion, but perhaps the emotion word
vocabulary, which Scheff says is small compared to
other languages, could be used to match people
against theorized classes of emotional behavior. (02)
I mentioned earlier that the Myers-Briggs
inventory is clearly correlated to vocabulary
preferences, and therefore, with Scheff's emotion
vocabulary spectrum information, perhaps emotions
of the various MB types and styles can be picked
out as well. I suspect each type uses some unique
configuration of the emotion words based on the
unconscious motivations they have. (03)
But each person's emotional spectrum must be
similar to their vocabulary use. Since we know
that each person is unique as a fingerprint, the
emotion words of their vocabulary should also be
unique, or approximately so. (04)
Comments appreciated. This raises the old Self
Interest Ontology thought. If there were an
emotion ontology which could be applied to Q&A
systems, based on vocabulary and knowledge of the
individual user, then each Q&A could be designed
to learn the Self Interest expressions of each
user. That would make for a more familiar
interaction between user and machine. (05)
-Rich (06)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:00 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sabotaging a
communication system is not a new idea (08)
> We need to keep George Box's comment in mind:
"All models are bad, some models are useful." (09)
Actually, Box wrote: Essentially, all models are
wrong, but some models are useful. (010)
According to Wikipedia, this comes from a book by
Box and Norman Draper in 1987, which is very late
in both careers. I previously found a reference
for this aphorism to a George Box monograph in
1979. And I found that surprising, since I had
heard the aphorism when I was doing traffic models
for HUD in the late 1960s. (011)
Further research attributes "all models are wrong,
but some are useful" to W. Edwards Deming (a
famous economist and statistician) in 1947! (As
it happens, the project leader on the HUD project
was a Ph.D. economist.) Interestingly, George Box
was also a statistician of note, but primarily in
the domain of control systems, and his career
began in the late 1950s. It is entirely possible
that the aphorism was long known among
statisticians before it was written in a book, and
may indeed predate both of these significant
persons. (In any case, the Wikipedia citation is
highly unlikely to be the original.) (012)
I am not really familiar with Deming's work, but
according to Wikipedia, one of Deming's Four
Principles of Profound Knowledge (1986?) was "a
theory of knowledge", which presumably makes him a
relevant contributor to the genre of this Forum. (013)
-Ed (014)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John
Bottoms
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:30 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sabotaging a
communication system is not a
> new idea
>
> I have looked in to modeling a bit. The latest
research indicates that a human
> has about 80B neurons of about 100 types. (I
have been discussing this with
> Dr. Herculano-Houzel.)
> >
http://www.livescience.com/18749-human-brain-cell-
number.html
> There are some indications that there are
neuronal couplets that account for
> as many as 40% of the 80B neurons. I made an
estimate of the model for a
> neuronal couplet and it takes about 30 op-amps
to model the most basic
> pathways within the couplet.That says nothing
about the number or
> strengths of the interface circuits or the
timings of the control system. So,
> this is non-trivial work and is not likely to
yield a true model for some time. I
> don't know if the Elegans models include
information on the types of
> neurons.
>
> The work with both trees and humans indicate
that there are interfaces with
> viruses that are useful also. Recently a virus
bacteriophage was detected
> (noticed is more likely) that is ancient and
lives in the human gut. This
> bacteriophage might have the task of maintaining
the bacterial levels in the
> gut across a number of different food nutrients.
Others point to the virus as a
> contributor to obesity.
> >
>
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140724/ncomms549
8/full/ncomms5
> 498.ht
> > ml
>
> We are complex organizations and tightly tied to
our environment. We need
> to keep George Box's comment in mind: "All
models are bad, some models
> are useful."
> Which is true of these is true for the Elegans
work?
>
> -John Bottoms
> Concord, MA USA
>
> On 11/25/2014 1:59 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> > I remember a recent article saying that trees
under stress (fire,
> > disease, termites, ...) send specific proteins
out to the rest of the
> > forest, and the sensing plants in the area
that detect the signals
> > start preparing to survive the threat in
question.
> >
> > So there are deep chemical pathways, in
paramecia, in plants, and
> > certainly within mammal brains, by which the
cells intercommunicate.
> > Figuring that out will take an enormous amount
of time and work.
> >
> >
> > -Rich
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Rich Cooper
> > EnglishLogicKernel.com
> > Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> > 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F
> > Sowa
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:40 AM
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sabotaging a
communication system is not
> > a new idea
> >
> > On 11/25/2014 1:10 PM, Michael Brunnbauer
wrote:
> >> If I remember right, the problem is that the
> > connectome does
> >> not include synaptic strength and other
> > important details and
> >> that you have to simulate body and
environment
> > in great detail
> >> too to get the right inputs and test the
> > simulation. The chemistry
> >> and physics matters - especially with only
302
> > neurons.
> >
> > All those points are important.
> >
> > Furthermore, a single-celled paramecium, which
has no neurons of any
> > kind, exhibits complex behavior: finding
food, mating, recognizing
> > obstacles, and "remembering" them long enough
to navigate around them.
> >
> > Experiments show that a paramecium is also
capable of learning
> > -- in the sense that it responds faster to
stimuli that it had
> > previously encountered and responded to
successfully.
> >
> > Since the structures of any cell of any animal
(including neurons) are
> > as complex as those in a paramecium, it seems
likely that each neuron
> > has similar capabilities. That implies that
the so-called "neural
> > networks" that treat each neuron as a simple
switch are grossly
> > oversimplified.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
__________________________________________________
> > _______________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
________
> _______
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________
> _______
> 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?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (015)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|