Re: SUO: Re: IFF Comments Requested
>Pat,
> Some of your comments strike me.
>Sure that they are right if one be referring to the old classical
>work done in problem solving and psychological area.
> But most of current work on problem solving consider only success
>or failure of experts' strategies. They do not consider the
>strategies of novices, notably at the the begining of the solving
>process for two reasons: one is that they do not know how to do;
>the second reason is that it is too much difficult and that it needs
>too much work. It is not that this kind of research would not
>interest them. If the work to know how to do was easier they will do.
I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you meaning to suggest that
topos theory is likely to provide a good foundation for a
psychological theory of performance of novices? That is a remarkable
idea. You may be right, but (after trying to teach topos theory to
undergraduates) I find it so wildly unlikely that I would like to see
some case made for it.
>The other argument that you took and that I can't agree with concens
>the adequation of a modern approach of language to a cognitive
>approach. It is currently admitted now that the working of language
>is complicated. And I know that you know. So the last rampart to a
>complexification of the cognitive approach remain in the refusal of
>an approach such as IFF which seems to me ready - even if it would
>surely evolve as my own data would do - to import the complex
>language approach to cognitive level.
Again, (if I follow you), I find this extremely unlikely. I cannot
see any trace of a shred of evidence anywhere in linguistics that
natural language structures will be illuminated by considering them
to be topos. If anything, the overwhelming balance of evidence would
seem to be in the other direction.
>The emergence of global objects from interactions between elements
>constitute steps in the acquisition of concepts. And it is able to
>be articulated with a neural and distribued approach.
>
>The passage between linguistic and cognitive level stands in the
>fact that syntax can be signifying. Do you think you could ignore
>anymore cognitive linguistics such as Talmy's and Langagker's ones ?
Not if I were doing cognitive linguistics. If doing ontology, I
wouldn't (and don't) *ignore* Talmy, though I find his ideas too
vague to be of real utility. However, this has nothing to do with
IFF, as far as I can see.
>The most important thing stands in the fact that the meaningful
>syntax opened the way to the elaboration of cognitive observables
>which are able to give account of inobservable concepts.
>
>I do not yet know if IFF is able to work for every problem I have
>already list. But I am sure I can start with.
>
>I am not able to juge your criticisms about topos theory. In fact I
>know topos theory only through some linguistic french works. And I
>confess that I never understood something in it. But when I read
>Robert's document I understood very well what he wrote about topos.
>It is only a clear mathematical concept which could surely be
>interpreted in many different ways as almost mathematical notions.
>With Robert's approach, I am able to clarify most of my psychological data.
>The main difficulty I have stands in the fact I am not familiar with
>notations and I am doing mistakes.
>
>Beyond the very nice approach of name spaces, I found very
>interesting to give a separation between objects and metalevel.
That distinction is indeed useful, but does not require topos theory.
It is made throughout linguistics and logic.
Pat Hayes
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes