Ravi and Hans,
Now that there are three of us, we have a group that subscribes
to the belief that ontology is a mathematical description of an individual's
known types of entities, plus each one's potential behaviors. Our differences
seem to be whether the ontology is generated through an individual subjective aggregation
of experience, or whether the ontology is generated in some more widespread,
objectively understood way.
The issue seems to be how can we compute that ontology given that
the individual is available for (nondestructive) reverse engineering. If we
can take what we know of ontology in the abstract, and find its wiggles,
perhaps we can learn to predict the wiggles and then simulate ontologeny (!)
processes versus the more well known ontogeny processes. There may be similar
underlying descriptions we can mathematize.
So how can we compute an individual's ontology? Algorithms
anyone?
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 4:16 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10
Rich, Ravi:
I don’t have much to add to this dialog, but would observe that
we should “embrace” diversity – and deal with that diversity, rather than
suppress it. I’m not sure that encouraging growing diversity is always good – I
think that’s how speciation occurs. My own belief is that we should discourage
casual diversity – diversity for the sake of diversity or out of ignorance of
what others have done. I will admit that sometimes that ignorance leads to
positive innovation, but it also leads to “frictional losses”, to bring physics
back into the discussion a bit.
Regarding the use of the term commonality, I’d like to point out
that it requires some implicit understanding of the types of differences and
the extent of such differences across which the thing in questions is “common”.
However, we rarely see anyone using the term “common” to specify the
differences across which something is common.
Hans
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:57 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10
Dear Ravi,
You wrote:
RS>How does math or logic help
us all with different philosophic and linguistic backgrounds to help
converge towards universal understanding?
To me, it seems that math or logic DOES NOT help us all to ...
converge towards ... understanding. Neither math nor logic helps us to
understand the same things because we do not have the same experiences in our
memories.
RS> Can ontologies,
being based on logic help us better understand neural world and mind-brain
puzzle?
Math and logic are linear in the sense that we can use those
tools to predict our near term future, or to chart the probabilities of
different outcomes, and otherwise tell us something about the future given the
current and the past.
But people are dynamically structured, in the sense that we
modify our behaviors to accomplish our individual goals. Feedback control
systems do the same thing for relatively simple mathematical structures, but
again they are linear extrapolations used to squeeze the knowledge so we can
find out where it leaks.
The best you can say is that on some occasions, people in close
groups converge to using a single word to denote a very, very simple
situation. "War" in the thirties meant WWI, then long over, not
a new threat. But in the forties, "war" supposedly still meant
the same thing to everyone, but the experiences of people directly involved or
affected by war were completely different than the experiences of those
uninvolved and unaffected, or of Alaskan Inuit, or of Australian aborigines, or
of Chinese University Professors, and many more obvious cases. Each of
these groups exist where the divergence in "understanding" is huge
for critical words. But there are many more cases that are more subtle,
where the word is used by many, but the meaning is very, very different.
Hence polysemy evolved to let the divergence keep diverging.
That is why I prefer to cast linguistic discussions as two
agents learning how to communicate with each other, instead of casting
discussions as a class of identical clones imbibing the same cool aid
dictionary of a universal symbology that none of them fully understand.
RS> We may have
different philosophies but Newton's laws and classical mechanics go a long way
for scientist and engineers; is this due to experimental verification of math
that is behind them?
Actually, as an electrical engineer, computer scientist, and
systems engineer at various points in my hectic career, I have NEVER had to use
Newton's laws, classical mechanics, or any of that stuff. I used e(t) =
i(t) * z(t) and its imaginary friend in quadrature for lots of things in signal
processing and electronics. I used Fourier and Yates transforms, control
theory, optimal control, directed graphs, undirected network graphs, and
gazillions of other math, but I don't recall using physics or mechanics for
much of anything. I used a lot of logic in electronic logic design tasks.
I used simulation equations for many representations, but none of that is the
most important math in my history.
Math to model throughput, response time, multiplexing, logic,
security, many other figures of merit (FOMs) get quite detailed when described
in math of various kinds, but it is almost never completely linear with today's
technology. So that kind of math is far more important to my engineering
associates who are not in physical mechanics, but who use math heap by
heap.
And, as JFS said a few emails ago, even physicists don't agree
on all that physics stuff. Look at dark matter, or cold fusion.
Every slight difference among a group of collaborating physicists creates one
or more physicist with diverging opinion from the essential theories of the
remaining group.
So my opinion is that we necessarily have divergence in opinions
for good evolutionary reasons, and we should ENHANCE that divergence at least
until we understand it in full. All progress has been made through
divergent cracks in the infrastructure of that era's "common
thoughts(t)".
RS> A note on
your exhilaration about brain being a wonderful machine, and certainly hope
evolving - how did brain-mind of Mammals evolve, (we know that Aves also
have some superb capabilities) and homo sapiens the best so far but universe
probably (and most likely) has beings with mind-brain-consciousness billions
of light years ahead of us? If we do not understand inter-species
communication, how will we understand communications - among different alien
life (forms)?
We have some small insight into a few other species, such as the
work at Georgia State about primates and communications lessons learned.
There is also work (but I am not familiar with the details) of communication
among wolves, dogs, crows, dolphins, parrots, whales, and many other
species.
But the problem, IMHO, is that each species in a conversation
lacks the basic experiences and neural wiring of the other species.
Researchers call that topic "embodied intelligence".
I can't hold my breath and explore the ocean rim like the
dolphins do, and they can't operate mechanical and electronic equipment like I
can, nor can Narwhales vote. So our advances on that front have been
really slow, but with new knowledge gradually accreting on the journal
floors.
Sooner or later there will emerge a pile large enough to bring
us new knowledge of other species.
RS>Rich - I have
not given enough thought to the relationship between physics - math (logic) and
philosophy hence the ambiguity. Any clarity would help.
For that question, I am probably not the best choice. As I
pointed out above, I have used physics very sparingly since college. I
consider math and logic to be descriptive of systems I want to understand,
develop, or modify. For that reason it is useful. But for
philosophy, I have seldom found intriguing enough philosophical questions to interest
me. You may get better responses from Matthew West, or John Sowa, or one
of the others who are more interested and invested in the philosophical
details.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Perhaps better choice of words for "universal
understanding" could be "common" understanding or something else
that implies agreement on the concept by many.
What I wanted to convey in the last sentence of
communication was that perhaps there was a way for people to agree on
understanding topics such as Physics. What is Physics? It is
about description of nature of physical universe. Things about mind-brain
and metaphysics are more complex or yet to be developed to the extent to which
some math helps us understand physics today.
We may have different philosophies but Newton's laws and
classical mechanics go a long way for scientist and engineers; is this due to
experimental verification of math that is behind them?
I am looking at partitioning some parts of physics where
Math can help many of us to agree on the range of validity. Is it
the mathematics (which I presume is based on Logic and or
"imagination" or Concepts) that makes understanding more agreeable -
often backed by measurements / experiments?
Rich - I have not given enough thought to the relationship
between physics - math (logic) and philosophy hence the ambiguity. Any clarity
would help.
A note on your exhilaration about brain being a
wonderful machine, and certainly hope evolving - how did brain-mind of
Mammals evolve, (we know that Aves also have some superb capabilities) and homo
sapiens the best so far but universe probably (and most likely) has beings
with mind-brain-consciousness billions of light years ahead of us? If we
do not understand inter-species communication, how will we understand
communications - among different alien life (forms)?
Can ontologies, being based on logic help us better
understand neural world and mind-brain puzzle?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ravi,
Can
you describe in much more vivid detail what you mean by your question:
How does math or logic help us all with different philosophic
and linguistic backgrounds to help converge towards universal
understanding?
Why
do you think that "universal understanding" exists? Perhaps
there is only "individual understanding". How would we be able
to detect cases of "universal understanding" to distinguish them from
"individual understanding"?
In my
opinion, we only converge with the groups of people we interact with on a regular
basis. But we never converge for the sake of converging. There must
be an individual motivator to join a specific group. That motivator tends
to be strong in some people for some groups and the inverse for others.
But there is no good enough history database to really collect actual data on
the hundreds of years of written history behind us. But experiments like
that could be done more easily now.
So we
can only sigh at the lack of history details.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich
Cooper,
Chief
Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics
Corporation
MetaSemantics
AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4
9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
- All our recent or useful discoveries and products
are based on engineering which are ultimately dependent on physics
approximations. Physics attempts to include life sciences phenomena but
not yet convincingly till we can synthesize Life reliably! But otherwise
physics is attempt at description of at least non-life matter.
- Scientists / Engineers know their models are
based on Range of Validity and approximations related to desired accuracy,
deviations from mean, etc.
- Reality and truth get us into the fuzzy areas
where knowledge of how the brain works could help us better define the
context or meaning. All Cosmic skylight (e.g. at night) falling on retina
- does it describe reality? What kind?
- when individual photons from different
sources impinged on retina but actually originated from different objects
at different times some of which in our local-time may not
even exist now.
- how long after photon entered retina - i.e.
to individual subject's brain processing time?
- as believed in some philosophies that what
appears in senses is not-real the reality is Only One.Thomas Johnson's
description in email thread: that Being is One (and so an explanation of
Being should be one) it goes earlier to Parmenidian - centuries
earlier than 600BC.
- your earlier comments relating to models of
objects perceived by individual brain and connectionism and including
referenced URL- your work with Majumdar.
- Now my Question - How does math or logic help us
all with different philosophic and linguistic backgrounds to help
converge towards universal understanding? At least Physicists
understand Relativity and Symmetry models through mathematical
"language"?
On
Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On
4/22/2015 2:45 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote:
> But two theories are not better than one, as regimented attempts
> to understand things. I think the underlying intuition which pushes
> physicists towards a unified theory...
Tom, physics is the *worst* example. Almost nobody ever uses the
most general theories. For any particular example, they *always*
use a special-case approximation that is tailored for that example.
And most of them, even for the same project, are *inconsistent*
with one another.
Physicists have known for over a century that Newtonian physics
is only an approximation, but it is still the most widely used
theory. But even then, there are huge numbers of special cases
of Newtonian mechanics: supersonic fluids; subsonic fluids;
turbulent flow; viscous flow; incompressible fluids (which really
aren't). The biggest examples are the incredible number of
approximations for computing the global weather -- different
versions for multiple levels of the atmosphere, different regions
of the earth, different terrains, geographies, ocean currents,
times of day, seasons of the year, etc., etc., etc...
The total number of widely used approximations is in the thousands.
The number of detailed approximations is in the billions -- every
engineer for every project takes a large number of general-purpose
approximations and specializes them for different parts of the project.
Every large system -- ranging from your cell phone to your car to the
trains, planes, and road systems you use every day -- is based on a
large collection of mutually inconsistent approximations to the basic
laws of physics -- all of which are *known* to be false when pushed
to the limits.
Fundamental principle: The human brain is the most complex natural
system known. It is far more complex than the global weather, the
Large Hadron Collider, or the global collection of all the human
constructions on earth.
Analogy: The Greek theories of the cosmos by the pre-Socratics
are closer to modern physics than any current theory of the brain
is to the way it actually works.
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
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile