Hello Thomas,
Thanks for your comments:
TJ: I
don't know how we could derive ontological categories from observations of
fruit files, even from observations correlated with identifiable patterns of
stimuli in identifiable regions of the fly's brain (something, anyway, which I
doubt can be reliably done).
If a
fruit fly flies off in one direction, is it flying towards a desired object (a
mate, food) or away from a feared object (a bird, any other large moving
object)? If it is flying towards a mate, that's how we would describe what it's
doing. But in what sense does the fly itself have the concept of a mate?
That depends on the observer's interpretation. Why would flying
indicate anything emotional? You are anthropomorphizing flying with human-interpreting
events. The real value of the Cal Tech work is in having access to the fly's central
emotional neurons, which are hypothesized to be in a tiny area of the brain. So
the "meaning" of a stimulus is only organized in the fly brain, not
in the observer brain. The "meaning" of any stimulus depends on the
fly, not on the observer. The observer's attribution of meaning is simply
wrong. Get the basic emotional neurochemicals first, then hypothesize an
emotional reason that fits with the fly's actions after the stimulus is
presented.
TJ: If
we drain the concept of concept of enough meaning, than any pattern of behavior
could be said to manifest the use of a concept in making a judgment (the judgment
to carry out that behavior). And the concept we attribute, in those attenuated
cases, will be very much a product of our own interpretative prejudices. The
fruit fly ontology we come up with will be more or less an Alice in Wonderland
ontology.
And if
we drain the concept of concept of enough meaning to attribute concepts
(ontological categories) to fruit flies, then I think it's not a very big step
beyond that to attribute desire and hunger to Venus fly traps!
How does one "drain the concept of meaning"? I don't
understand your statement. Could you please elaborate on how that is possible
given that the "meaning" is in the fruit fly, not in the observer.
The observer's attributed "meaning" would be completely unrecognizable
to the fruit fly.
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 Thomas
Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7:06 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions -
ontology discovery possible?
I don't know how we could
derive ontological categories from observations of fruit files, even from
observations correlated with identifiable patterns of stimuli in identifiable
regions of the fly's brain (something, anyway, which I doubt can be reliably
done).
If a fruit fly flies off in
one direction, is it flying towards a desired object (a mate, food) or away
from a feared object (a bird, any other large moving object)? If it is flying
towards a mate, that's how we would describe what it's doing. But in what sense
does the fly itself have the concept of a mate?
If we drain the concept of
concept of enough meaning, than any pattern of behavior could be said to
manifest the use of a concept in making a judgement (the judgement to carry out
that behavior). And the concept we attribute, in those attenuated cases, will
be very much a product of our own interpretative prejudices. The fruit fly
ontology we come up with will be more or less an Alice in Wonderland ontology.
And if we drain the concept
of concept of enough meaning to attribute concepts (ontological categories) to
fruit flies, then I think it's not a very big step beyond that to attribute
desire and hunger to Venus fly traps!
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:02
PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/18/2015 7:44 PM, Rich
Cooper wrote:
> I am interested in the emotions, their interrelationships,
> and math models of how they work in a library of situations.
There have been many, many such models over the centuries.
For a model developed by the psychologist David Matsumoto and
applied to "human intelligence", see
http://www.humintell.com/macroexpressions-microexpressions-and-subtle-expressions/
That page has 7 sample faces that express his "universal facial
expressions of emotion": Happy, Surprise, Contempt, Sadness, Anger,
Disgust, and Fear. It also cites some publications that describe
applications of that classification.
> I am looking for an algorithm that could, with sizeable numbers
> of fruit flies, and sizeable numbers of situations experimentally
> simulated to the flies, elicit the ontology of the fruit fly's
> response CLASS TYPEs through observing the behavior of the fruit flies.
I got that message from your previous note.
JFS
> Don't expect a "unified theory" based on a simple combination
> of features or components.
RC
> But do use a simple framework of combinations of the common
> components to explore the emotion space.
Philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists
have devoted many person-millennia to exploring the "emotion space"
with a huge number of simple and complex frameworks.
If anybody comes up with a really good combination, I would express
something between Happy and Surprise. But I'm not holding my breath.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|