Dan Ariely is a Duke Prof who
explains the evidence about how people make decisions under various conditions.
This is his talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGL_CWHP78Y
So it would seem that knowing these
details, one could write a requirements doc about how the conversational
interface would help people deal with these tendencies.
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 Rich Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 1:19 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology based conversational interfaces
OK, John,
That's a constructive suggestion you made:
JFS: One of the few instances in
which he says "the world" could be replaced by the phrase
"planet earth" without changing the point:
"Much of
our experience of the world comes from inside our brains."
I don't particularly like stipulating that "planet
earth" captures the concept, but since you don't like the word
"world", let's not put in any substitution at all for the main point:
its "objective reality" we should put there:
"Much of
our experience of objective reality comes from inside our
brains."
Perhaps that will fly. Is it OK with you?
Does anyone else object to the verbalities?
It's a reference to the stored experiences of reality, in
our memories, from deep within our earliest sensations, which were the closest
we could ever get to objective reality, until now. In the duration, we
have become more and more biased in our particularly chosen directions.
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: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 12:36 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology based conversational interfaces
Bruce, Ed, and Rich,
Many years ago, I learned that if some word is a cause of
many confused and confusing arguments, it's a good idea to *banish* that word
from the discussion.
Bruce
> What is common, what is world? That, too, is a
matter of stipulation
> and agreement.
Yes, indeed. For that matter, the *only* precise
meaning for the word is "planet earth". Everything else is an
extended use or metaphor that varies from one context to another.
Recommendation: In every occurrence of that word in
this thread, replace the word 'world' with a word or phrase with a narrower
meaning. If you mean planet earth, say so. If you mean world view
(or German Weltanschauung) say so.
Ed
> U.S. Republicans and Democrats, like the political
parties of other
> major “democracies”, must agree on a
“common world”
> (universe of discourse) in order to communicate and
legislate.
Politics is an example where a huge number of problems
are created by the choice of words. All the parties could agree much more
quickly if they avoided words such as 'freedom', 'amnesty', 'religion', 'conservative',
'liberal', 'socialist', 'extremist'...
Successful politicians are not stupid. They don't
use those words when they're talking one-to-one with no cameras around.
But as soon as the cameras are turned on, the discussion turns to mush.
Rich
> Dan Ariely explains some of the reasons why we see
different worlds:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y0w5EJC9o0
That's a good talk. But Dan A. does *not* use the
word 'world'.
I took some notes, and he uses narrow, precise terms:
"How would you design an
experiment?"
"How do you classify
experience?"
"The brain is filtering
information in a biased way."
One of the few instances in which he says "the
world" could be replaced by the phrase "planet earth" without
changing the point:
"Much of our experience of the
world comes from inside our brains."
Recommendation to Rich: You have been creating a
huge amount of confusion in this thread by using the word 'world' in a
hopelessly vague way. If you want to continue discussing the topics in
this thread, please *stop* using that word.
If you need help, go back to Dan A's talk and take notes
on which words he uses.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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