Yes, the row should contain a truth value column that represents
the fluent aspect. You want the interpretation of the row to return the truth
value in the row if that predicate is to be considered asserted.
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: Thomas Johnston
[mailto:tmj44p@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:25 AM
To: Rich Cooper; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fruit fly emotions mimic human emotions -
ontology discovery possible?
At a first pass, very
interesting. On seeing expansion, contraction and revision as three modes of
belief revision, I -- as a data modeler -- was immediately struck by its
parallel to the SQL Insert, Delete and Update statements whereby a set of instances
of a type (rows of a table) change over time, the rows in a table, at any point
in time, representing our then current beliefs about what things currently
exist that are instances of that type.
And obviously due a careful
reading, which I will soon get to.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:32
AM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
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
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 (01)
|