ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology d

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 14:54:15 +0000 (UTC)
Message-id: <1358025222.3454492.1432133655571.JavaMail.yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bruce,

I remember that same old canard from my comp sci days in the mid-60's!

I also agree very much with your request for clarification of many key terms, which is really, I think, the suggestion that there is so much work that needs to be done with those terms that we are well-advised to refrain from spreading our ontological wings until we know a little more about what we are asking about.

Finally, this discussion reminds me of what I take to be the need to provide an intermediate theory between (i)  language of thought-like theories of mental representation as consisting of discrete units manipulated by discrete processes, i.e. a neural implementation of predicate logic, and (ii) the born-again work in connectionism and ANNs (artificial neural networks).

Although I have some concerns, mainly surrounding the amount of weight he places on geometry, such an intermediate theory is to be found in Peter Gardenfor's work. I have two of his books The Geometry of Thought (2000), and The Geometry of Meaning (2014), and am rereading the former, carefully, and with more background than I had on my two previous readings. It is a book well worth reading. Chapter 6 is where Gardenfors really cashes in his claim that his theory of conceptual spaces provides a solution to several LOT-level puzzles like Goodman's grue/bleen riddle of induction. 

I have only skimmed the second book, but it looks like Gardenfors learned a lot of linguistics in the fourteen years between his two books, and that the second extends his same basic theory of conceptual spaces into linguistics (both syntax and semantics) successfully enough to preserve the plausibility established in the first book.

There is also the Donald Loritz's 1999 book How the Brain Evolved Language. For those who think it is worth trying to develop a fruit fly ontology, I suggest that this study of brains -- not specifically human brains -- and language, might be a good prolegomenon.

In addition, the subject of brains and language has also been extensively studied, from an evolutionary point of view, by an expert in pidgin and creole languages, Derek Bickerton. I think his extremely readable style -- in his books at least -- may have led to his having been taken less seriously that he ought to have been. His notion of proto-language is well-developed, and his critique of Chomsky (in his many reincarnations) is much appreciated! (by me, that is.)

The books of Bickerton's that I have read, and that I recommend, are:

Language and Species
Adam's Tongue
More Than Nature Needs

The latter two titles illustrate what I mean by a writing style that could easily be thought to indicate lightweight popularization stuff. But I don't think it is. I think his arguments are extremely clear -- not always easy, but always clear. And from those parts of his bibliographies that I know something about, I am convinced that his material is well-researched.

Regards,

Tom




On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:16 PM, Bruce Schuman <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:


No doubt I should restrain myself in this present august company, but having spent the last two days transversing the mysteries of website database migration, with ample illustration of semantic ambiguity along the way, and having searched this discussion for some reference to this old joke and not found one, I just can’t help it.
 
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
 
 
So what is the meaning of “mimic”
 
What is or is not an “emotion”
 
Are we talking about “analogy”
 
If so, in what dimensions?  Can those be measured?  Maybe we’re talking about “homomorphic attribute mapping?”
 
Or maybe “metaphor”
 
Or perhaps “synonym”
 
Or “comparison”
 
Or “similarity”
 
Or “simile”
 
Or “homomorphism”
 
Maybe we claim that in the end, there is no such thing as definition (except by hand-shaking agreement?)
 
Because all this stuff floats in a plastic sea of ungrounded dimensionality substantiated by soft statistical processes like Facebook likes….
 
No absolute foundation for defining anything?
 
No one best way to build information structures
 
No primal directives from a universal ontology
 
No absolute simplification by absolute data compression
 
Adhocery and sword-fighting forever…
 
Or – a new foundation that makes civilization workable….  ????
 
 
Ok, I really do know better, my apologies, but this old joke about the banana has been out there forever, and it seems so relevant….
 
Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara
 
 
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:51 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?
 
Here is a TEDx talk by the same professor (David Anderson):
 
 
 
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
 
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:33 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?
 
Ontologists All,
 
If fruit flies can and do indeed exhibit all the "component" emotions that humans can and do exhibit, then the fruit flies could be investigated as subjects in experiments about emotions, and about possible pharmaceutical candidates, related to emotional disturbances. 
 
Here is a quote from a Cal Tech lab report:
 
"These experiments provide objective evidence that visual stimuli designed to mimic an overhead predator can induce a persistent and scalable internal state of defensive arousal in flies, which can influence their subsequent behavior for minutes after the threat has passed," Anderson says. "For us, that's a big step beyond just casually intuiting that a fly fleeing a visual threat must be 'afraid,' based on our anthropomorphic assumptions. It suggests that the flies' response to the threat is richer and more complicated than a robotic-like avoidance reflex."
 
The report doesn't identify which emotional "components" they "observed" in fruit flies after simulating existential threats to the flies.  But I would expect Cal Tech professors to get their ducks in a straight row fairly often since Pasadena is so far from the surf.  Here is the report from their web site:
 
 
Would it be possible to automate an evoked response that demonstrates each emotional state designated by the professor as a "component"?  If so, would it then be possible to write an ontology discovery program that explores that space using a buncha fruit flies crossed with a buncha experimental situations? 
 
It would only have to start with the observed components' emotional effects.  Then that information could be used to design specialized and generalized experiments to produce more organized behaviors.  The experiments, specializations and generalizations would, of course, form some kind of lattice in the end if all components can be observed. 
 
That could also be a way to work on identifying which of the emotional "components" are truly fundamental to those of us who are descended from the fruit fly.  Perhaps even emotional illnesses, such as schizophrenia, OCD, bipolarity, etc. could be matched to new drugs based on this emotion research in flies. 
 
But the first step is in creating an ontology that might be observed in other fruit flies, but varied due to their individual genetic divergences. 
 
Suggestions 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


_________________________________________________________________
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



On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:16 PM, Bruce Schuman <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:


No doubt I should restrain myself in this present august company, but having spent the last two days transversing the mysteries of website database migration, with ample illustration of semantic ambiguity along the way, and having searched this discussion for some reference to this old joke and not found one, I just can’t help it.
 
Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
 
 
So what is the meaning of “mimic”
 
What is or is not an “emotion”
 
Are we talking about “analogy”
 
If so, in what dimensions?  Can those be measured?  Maybe we’re talking about “homomorphic attribute mapping?”
 
Or maybe “metaphor”
 
Or perhaps “synonym”
 
Or “comparison”
 
Or “similarity”
 
Or “simile”
 
Or “homomorphism”
 
Maybe we claim that in the end, there is no such thing as definition (except by hand-shaking agreement?)
 
Because all this stuff floats in a plastic sea of ungrounded dimensionality substantiated by soft statistical processes like Facebook likes….
 
No absolute foundation for defining anything?
 
No one best way to build information structures
 
No primal directives from a universal ontology
 
No absolute simplification by absolute data compression
 
Adhocery and sword-fighting forever…
 
Or – a new foundation that makes civilization workable….  ????
 
 
Ok, I really do know better, my apologies, but this old joke about the banana has been out there forever, and it seems so relevant….
 
Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara
 
 
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:51 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?
 
Here is a TEDx talk by the same professor (David Anderson):
 
 
 
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
 
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:33 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions - ontology discovery possible?
 
Ontologists All,
 
If fruit flies can and do indeed exhibit all the "component" emotions that humans can and do exhibit, then the fruit flies could be investigated as subjects in experiments about emotions, and about possible pharmaceutical candidates, related to emotional disturbances. 
 
Here is a quote from a Cal Tech lab report:
 
"These experiments provide objective evidence that visual stimuli designed to mimic an overhead predator can induce a persistent and scalable internal state of defensive arousal in flies, which can influence their subsequent behavior for minutes after the threat has passed," Anderson says. "For us, that's a big step beyond just casually intuiting that a fly fleeing a visual threat must be 'afraid,' based on our anthropomorphic assumptions. It suggests that the flies' response to the threat is richer and more complicated than a robotic-like avoidance reflex."
 
The report doesn't identify which emotional "components" they "observed" in fruit flies after simulating existential threats to the flies.  But I would expect Cal Tech professors to get their ducks in a straight row fairly often since Pasadena is so far from the surf.  Here is the report from their web site:
 
 
Would it be possible to automate an evoked response that demonstrates each emotional state designated by the professor as a "component"?  If so, would it then be possible to write an ontology discovery program that explores that space using a buncha fruit flies crossed with a buncha experimental situations? 
 
It would only have to start with the observed components' emotional effects.  Then that information could be used to design specialized and generalized experiments to produce more organized behaviors.  The experiments, specializations and generalizations would, of course, form some kind of lattice in the end if all components can be observed. 
 
That could also be a way to work on identifying which of the emotional "components" are truly fundamental to those of us who are descended from the fruit fly.  Perhaps even emotional illnesses, such as schizophrenia, OCD, bipolarity, etc. could be matched to new drugs based on this emotion research in flies. 
 
But the first step is in creating an ontology that might be observed in other fruit flies, but varied due to their individual genetic divergences. 
 
Suggestions 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


_________________________________________________________________
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



_________________________________________________________________
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>