Phil and Gregg, (01)
Your notes make some important points. But I'd add that the main
novelty of the natlog slides come in the last two files, natlog3
and natlog4. They become more technical, but they introduce a new
way of integrating vision and other modalities into logic and
reasoning. (See the addendum below) (02)
PCM
> I would add that human language is also based on:
>
> 1. The nature of our sound-producing organs, including lung
> capacity and normal breathing cycles, and our hearing/listening
> capabilities under normal circumstances. (03)
That is certainly true for human spoken languages. (04)
GR
> Sign language?
>
> These days lots of people think human language is grounded
> in gesture. Google David McNeill for more info. (05)
Note slides 4-6 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/natlog2.pdf
especially slide 5, which summarizes an article about infants
who are bilingual in two different languages of their parents.
They include all 10 combinations of English, French, American
Sign Language (ASL), and Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ). (06)
PCM
> 2. The production of a single linear stream of sound. (Most of
> us don't normally produce multiple simultaneous streams of speech.
> However, we seem to be able to understand, at least to some limited
> degree, simultaneous speech and music.) (07)
We live in a single *multimedia* stream. Simultaneous speech and
music is a single stream that builds on and extends the *music*
of speech. Dancing is an even further enhancement. Written language
has advantages in precision and permanence, but it also loses a lot. (08)
PCM
> some computer-based representations of meaningful
> communications enable people to reference subsets of prior
> communications explicitly, unambiguously, and dynamically. (09)
Those methods are already making a useful contribution. But the term
'unambiguously' is an exaggeration. The fact that somebody has written
a precise definition of a term does not imply that everybody (anybody?)
who uses the term has read, remembered, understood, or conformed to
the definition. (010)
Note that schema.org is growing much faster than any formal ontology.
But the versions that are growing exponentially faster are the vague
folksonomies and *hashtags*. (011)
John
_____________________________________________________________________ (012)
Addendum from http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/natlog4.pdf (013)
Slide 29:
COMPUTABILITY (014)
Can icons enable proofs with Generalized EGs to go beyond
what can be computed with a Turing machine? (015)
With the kinds of icons Euclid used, no:
... (016)
But with continuous icons, maybe:
... (017)
_____________________________________________________________________ (018)
Slide 30: (019)
TURING ORACLE MACHINES (020)
How could Generalized EGs go beyond a Turing machine?
... (021)
But Turing (1939) also discussed oracles for o-machines:
...
_____________________________________________________________________ (022)
Slide 31: (023)
A MULTIMEDIA LOGIC (024)
Peirce called existential graphs “the logic of the future.” (025)
Computer graphics and virtual reality can implement them:
... (026)
Peirce’s claim is consistent with neuroscience:
... (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|