Pat,
This quote from Peter Gardenfors might help you resolve
the issues:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Gaerdenfors/publication/238536946_SYMBOLIC_CONCEPTUAL_AND_SUBCONCEPTUAL_REPRESENTATIONS/links/004635281308d22bcc000000.pdf
Most adherents of the symbolic
paradigm are semantic realists in the sense that the “meaning” of a
predicate or a sentence is determined by mapping it to the external world (or, to
make it even more remote from a cognitive system, to a plethora of possible
worlds). The world (and the mapping) is assumed to exist independently of any
relation to a cognitive
subject. A clear example of this
position is given by Fodor: “If mental processes are formal [symbolic],
then they have access only to the formal properties of such representations of
the environment as the senses provide. Hence, they have no access to the
semantic properties of
such representations, including
the property of being true, of having referents, or, indeed, the property of
being representations of the environment”12 and “We must now face
what has always been the problem for representational theories to solve: what
relates internal representations to the world? What is it for a system of
internal representations to be
semantically
interpreted?”13 These problems arise for the symbolic paradigm because it
operates with a realist semantics that presume external representations. This
view on the semantics of the symbols makes it difficult to explain how the meanings
of the predicates change during the cognitive development of an agent. Semantic
realists are more or less obliged to assume that the meanings of symbols are
fixed. In a sense, this view of semantics is inherited from the model theory of
mathematical logic. For mathematical concepts, however, we never have the
problem of adapting concepts to new encounters with reality.
I hope that helps you,
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 11:18 AM
To: Rich Cooper
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural Languages
I am finding this whole thread rather bewildering. The
original suggestion, as I understand it, was that it might be a good idea to
invent an ontology focussed on the notion of self-interest. To my mind, this
suggestion immediately invites several questions.
1. Why? That is, why this notion rather than some other
folk-psychological notion, such as, say, schadenfreude or anger or happiness
or...? Is it because someone feels that self-interest is of central importance
in human affairs? What assumptions underlie this (or whatever other relevant)
intuition of this notion's importance? The answer to this question might
iluminate that of the next question.
2. This phrase 'self-interest' seems
underspecified. It can be understood in many ways: as a social/political force
in human affairs; as a pyschological hypothesis about human cognition; as a
moral factor; and so on. Each of these relates the phrase to a different
context of related notions, and probably will turn out to be a slightly
differnt idea as a result. What context was in mind when the ontology was
originally suggested? Where should we look to see what kind of other concepts
would be in the proposed ontology?
Pat
On Aug 31, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> Comments below,
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David
> Eddy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:34 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantics of Natural
Languages
>
> Rich -
>
> On 2011-08-31, at 4:30 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>
> > Why DON'T huge hunks of deduced, induced,
abduced
>
> > and reduced knowledge suffice? What is
still
>
> > lacking? Why don't gobs of special
purpose
>
> > functionality, coupled with gobs of knowledge,
do
>
> > the trick?
>
>
> #1 - much of life isn't subject to mathematical
logic (e.g. much of
>
> business activity is highly illogical)
>
>
> True; some AI luminaries called what business execs
do "satisficing" instead of optimizing. But businesses use risk
models and SWOT analyses to determine their position in a market and relative
risk positions. But note that more and more of business activity is based
on models and analysis of historical data. For example, hedge funds are
used to insure risky litigation in the patent industry so that the downside
isn't as down as it used to be.
>
>
> #2 - life (particularly as expressed with language)
is a constantly moving target, based on a poorly defined
"foundation."
>
>
> Boy isn't that the truth! We change our minds,
our strategies, our knowledge bases and our results on a daily basis.
Over the long run, we often can't recognize our past experiences the change is
so great.
>
>
> I express this in the following context...
>
> A house can certainly be described as a "system"
(or collection of systems... heating, plumbing, walls, electrical, etc.).
But once it's built it stays as a house ALWAYS. It will never be a boat
(unless you live in Vermont or upstate New York), an airplane or a car.
>
>
> But houses sometimes get remodeled into business
offices, and otherwise modified as the character of the location changes.
Still, most houses stay houses until razed, even though they get remodeled.
>
>
> Information systems typically are poorly/ambiguously
defined & constantly evolving.
>
> Plus the language used to describe information
systems (software) is all over the place & very rarely formally expressed.
>
> Like it or not, believe it or not, Agile or not,
most systems used in organizations go through some sort of systems development
life cycle...
>
> 1 - requirements
>
> 2 - analysis
>
> 3 - design
>
> 4 - coding
>
> 5 - implementation
>
> 6 - maintenance
>
> At each one of these steps people with different
views of the world,
> with different life experiences & with different
use of language get
> to put their oar in the water. Then you get to
mix in professional
>
> jealousies (requirements folks CERTAINLY do NOT
speak/write/think the same language as programmers) & the dynamics of
mergers & acquisitions.
>
>
> True enough; each discipline has its own tribe of
adherents (BA, SA, SE, Mgr …) and each has its own collective viewpoint
about how things OUGHT to be; it is nearly always something another tribe is
NOT doing, to that tribe's discomfort and hysteria. The amazing thing is
that ultimately MOST software developments are somewhat successful; otherwise
they would stop getting funded by those satisficing business execs.
>
>
> Personally I believe the good news is that the
business thingys are not all that numerous. I think there's some room to
argue—definitely ARGUE—that organizations run on between 1500 &
6000 concepts. But then it gets ugly since there are many, many, many
synonyms for core concepts. Remember my oft repeated: in 1980 a life
insurance company found in its software systems 70 different names for the
"policy number" concept.
>
>
> True. In my patent spec, I described how even
the supposedly simple
> concept of a Boolean value can be represented in
many different ways -
> 0/1, 1/2, T/F, Y/N, checkboxes, radio buttons
…
>
> But the 1500 to 6000 number still seems small to me,
given the complexities of doing business in current regulatory and tax
environments. Calling an expenditure by the wrong category name can be
very lossy if it doesn't get communicated purposefully to the tax accountant
for depreciation, credits, etc.
>
>
> I fully acknowledge that this is not something that
will help translate Arabic to English & pluck shifting political sentiments
out of the ether.
>
> BUT... it will help you modify your business
applications faster & more accurately.
>
> Take your pick as to which is more practical &
useful.
>
>
> History (at least mine) shows that people look for
ways to disagree on
> everything, and terminology is only one aspect of
it. BAs emphasize
> user experience more than correctness; SysEs
emphasize architecture
> over contents; SEs emphasize design over purpose;
Mgrs emphasize turf
> over profitability…
>
> Using the wrong word gets you into trouble in that
environment, even if it is, in a minimal vocabulary, the correct concept.
Words have emotive force as well as communicative value.
>
>
> ___________________
>
> David Eddy
>
>
> But I would still like to find ways to shrink the
diversity of terms; I just don’t think it will shrink to that small a
number. A thesaurus, by _expression_ instead of by word or concept, might
be a better goal than a minimalist number of utterances.
>
> -Rich
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC
(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz
St. (850)202
4416 office
Pensacola
(850)202 4440 fax
FL
32502
(850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes