Thomas,
You might want also to read Gardenfor's intro to belief revision
where he cites the difference between having a set of beliefs in FOL, and
choosing which belief to revise (emotions apply here). Here is the location:
http://sei.pku.edu.cn/~jwp/courses/MultiAgentTechnology/references/gardenfors.pdf
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 7:54 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions -
ontology discovery possible?
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:
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.
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.
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?”
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):
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
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.
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
_________________________________________________________________
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.
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?”
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):
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
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.
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|