ARE: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Party of Citizens [mailto:citizens@vcn.bc.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2002 8:37
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: RE: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
>
>
> Do you need grammatical rules as below for an NLP-AI System? What about
> just using tables of norms giving appropriate verbal responses for
> different circumstances or questions?
The first level is rooted in the non-verbal (as in lack of human speech as
compared to expressions of sounds) and a need to be in the context being
referred-to. IOW the indication of WHAT|WHO|WHICH linked by association to
another WHAT|WHO|WHICH and/or a WHERE|WHEN|HOW. This gets into physically
pointing etc associated with a developed FEELING.
The use of self-referencing via recursion of a dichotomy of the 1:many form
(and as such NOT-A is 'the universe' reducable to a particular element)
means that the elements of the dichotomy get MIXED as in:
level 0 - A : NOT-A
level 1 - A+A : A+NOT-A : NOT-A+A : NOT-A+NOT-A
Level 2 - A+A+A:A+A+~A:A+~A+A:A+~A+~A....~A+~A+~A
...
...
At level 0 there are two qualities expressed.
At level 1 there are four qualities where the middle two manifest the
'mixing' of the elements of the original dichotomy.
The level 0 perspective is totalist, it deals only with 'wholes' and so a
focus on ALL. Particularisation in communications requires an indication, a
pointing to the particular or some sort of indication of the universal.
Level 1 carries forward the ALL emphasis of level 0 but now introduces the
notion of SOME - as reflected in the two middle qualities.
Level 2 carries forward both the ALL and the SOME but also introduces an
additional four qualities. These four focus not so much on the objects but
more on the space inbetween - relational space.
The recursion is thus of an object (a particular that has draw attention and
so focus and so isolation - objectification). When we consider the MIXING of
the elements of the dichotomy we can identify four GENERAL expressions of
mixing that we can associate with objects and relationships:
A sense of BLENDING - of becoming/being 'ONE'. - integration
A sense of BOUNDING - of distinguishing 'this' from 'that' - differentiation
A sense of BONDING - of sharing the same space with another but retaining
identity; a static relationship - time is at best deemed 'eternal'.
A sense of BINDING - of sharing the same time with another but retaining
identity; a dynamic relationship - time is very much deemed 'begin-end'. (as
in my previous email, this realm is that of a qualitity reflected in the use
of imaginary numbers - representations of cyclic/morphic changes etc)
The OBJECTS - the WHAT:WHO:WHICH distinctions - relate to the feelings of
BLENDING (intergration) and BOUNDING (differentiation)
The RELATIONSHIPS - the WHERE:WHEN:HOW distinctions - relate to the feelings
of BONDING (intergration bias) and BINDING (differentiation bias).
The relationships focus on the space 'inbetween' objects as well as 'inner
space'.
These basic FEELINGS can serve as a base for communication through resonance
in that any form of communication acts to transmit <something> that causes a
feeling and that feeling is the source of meaning.
The processes of recruitment and abstraction (processes common to our
brains) allows for these basics to be applied to themselves to make
composites in the form of feelings - the suggestion is that this recruitment
process is by tetration methods - IOW the WHOLE set is taken and applied to
itself such that the set of qualities goes from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16
million+ in a very short period. This gives us TOO MUCH but in doing so
ensures enough space to develop into; self-referencing a la addition or
multiplication or exponentiation is too limiting (and anyway such a mindless
process would be reflected full recruitment).
There is no grammar here as yet. Just feelings communicatable to other
members of the species to give a general sense of object/relationship
patterns. Ideograms etc can emerge here where there is still a degree of
context reference required to localise a feeling.
At this level the feelings are in the form of an ordered set of qualities
which are mapped to a particular context. Meaning is through resonance in
that the 'pool' of feelings is shared across the species and as such each
species member can communicate with any other through non-verbal (or limited
sounds) methods.
The 'table' is thus a pool and so possible use of standing waves to reflect
a 'feeling'. (When we move to words so each word elicits a pattern that
elicits meaning. This is reflected in such examples as sand on a vibrating
surface (Cymatics). The specific frequency of the vibration creates a unique
pattern in the sand. Stop the vibration and the pattern remains (or a
reasonable representation of it). Extend this notion into our
frequency-dominated neurons where each neuron is like a grain of sand and
sensory data sets-off resonances and the patterns are now in 3D+)
This level of communication runs in parrallel, allowing for multiple data,
many patterns etc to combine through constructive/destructive interferences
to create a sense of 'blend' etc etc.
Consider the possible meanings in the Chinese ideogram of K'un:
"K'UN: Surface of the world; concrete extension; basis of all existence,
where CH'IEN..exerts it's power; all-involving service; earth; moon, wife,
mother; courtiers, servants. The ideogram: terrestrial globe and stretch
out, stability and extension."
We need reference to context to get a more 'precise' expression but there is
a GENERAL sense that covers ALL of these terms - in the I Ching this is
called "The Receptive" and deals with service, devotion, total trust in
another/others - there is an emphasis on a field to plant seed etc.
This emphasis 'maps' to WHAT:WHO:WHICH in the form of BLENDING where the
service, the devotion acts to draw someone/something 'in' with which we
achieve a sense of 'wholeness'. (the qualifier is 'contraction' IOW
'contractive blending'. What is of interest is that these symbols allow for
space-sharing - the symbol is representative of a BEING as well as a DOING -
a WHERE:WHEN:HOW)
We can develop 16 million+ of these types of symbolisms based on images and
feelings alone (and for just ONE dichotomy! - lack of detection of
difference will restrain the expression of all 16 million states but the
point is the neurocognitive/affective processes operate with this method) -
and no spoken words required. Communication IS rough, it is highly context
sensitive and, when compared to the spoken word, implicit in expression and
also 'holistic'. BUT it does seem to be the 'beginnings' of communications
and as such still forms the foundations for our communications; we still use
self-referencing to get details etc. and as such blend, bond, bound, and
bind and their composites. (The Zebra fish brain has the same 'biases' in
its brain as we do in ours - it just has a problem talking about them. IOW
the objects/relationships distinctions go 'way back' and are rooted in the
development of the neuron.)
Developmentally the more precise we become the more serial processing comes
to the fore and it is here that grammar starts to influence (as well as
local languages develop - the Tower of Babel story ;-)) Minsky raised this
point on serial processing:
"My theory: after a certain point in development, when the child has
acquired many different resources for thinking, then (in harmony with what I
call Papert's Principle) it becomes necessary to build higher level systems
to manage these resources. Now, higher-level thinking requires deeper and
more sequential operations. This is because a system that tries to do many
things in parallel will therefore become more fragmented - in the sense that
the different activities will have to compete for limited resources of
various sorts. If this is permitted then each of the parallel processes will
become more stupid. It is a myth that it is good to use parallel distributed
processes - because this leads not to cooperation but to mutual
interference. Accordingly, as a child develops higher systems, it becomes
necessary to break the right-left symmetry! [of the brain] *A deep
intellectual process can serve only one master!* " [Minsky 1987]
There are some points in this that I have issue with BUT the general focus
DOES seem to reflect the development of the spoken word and so an increase
in serial communications which 'happens' to reflect an increase in 'dot'
precision in the human brain in that the dominant hemisphere for EXPRESSION
is also the dominant hemisphere for very high level details and for
identifying what is KNOWN. (that part of the brain is biased to FM
processing, single context, 'clear' identifications but limited to local
text, universal context.)
There is a huge 'cost' in expending energy as we do - the specialisations
that emerge from this single context require huge energy costs in
maintenance etc but the benefits are the precision. It is from this 'realm'
that logic has emerged in the form we traditionally know it.
The 'problem' with this is that the emergence of logic reflects a single
context perspective that is also mechanical in that the development of a
part of the brain to deal with high details has come with all sorts of
'interesting' properties rooted in the underlying physiological processes.
This includes the mechanisation of time such that it is 'stoppable' (notion
of the eternal) as well as 'reversible' (and so totally at odds with our
thermodynamically controlled universe).
The benefit of this sense of the 'eternal' and the development of a
'mechanistic' perspective allows extremely high details on objects and
relationships (where the latter are often objectified for analysis and so
lose 'something' ;-)) and with this comes the analysis and development of
grammars. BUT this sense of the 'eternal' also impoverishes the concept of
the dynamic and that concept gets 'dumped' in such areas as logic,
parts-lists formations (aka ontologies etc) and that is something we need to
work on.
The benefit of serial language, its precision, is the ability to roll-up the
context and take it with us to 'tell a story' somewhereelse - the precision
in the words allow us to 'unfold' the context (or an imagined
representation) 'in' the brains of those hearing the story. and so
'resonance' ;-) IOW the spoken language has allowed us to replace the need
for pointing to the local context or more so it has become the pointer
;-)(Chomsky's hierarchy is useful and reflects development PAST the serial.)
IN humans it seems that the words point to the 'pool' of qualities. The
number of qualities develops where you cannot go back - IOW once you have
developed predicate logic you cannot 'forget it' to return to propositional!
(reflects the loss of innocense we all experience as we develop) To develop
AI systems the focus would seem to be on establishing a shared 'resonance' -
give them some sort of 'feeling'. That serves as the GENERAL source of
meaning. From THAT level develops the refinement of grammars etc (as
children have to learn - the innate elements are present in the
object/relationship 'feelings' and that is what children deal with. The
specifics of local grammars seem to reflect local 'nuances' that the brain
will work with but in doing so will convert things back to the
object/relationships that it knows. The closer you get to what the brain's
methodology is the less work required where the derived method, the impose
method, is translated to the 'real' language (reflects how we program
computers from C to assembler to microprogramming to 1s and 0s to
+12V/-12V!)
What is of interest is that the specialisations of today, if
gathered-together and intergrated could create a set of REFINED qualities of
a high degree that, converted to HABITS, would allow for extremely good,
'holistic' communications in that the concept of metonymy is a concept
seemingly 'encoded' in the species - part-for-whole processes are common and
such gets us into 'reference' beams etc (the 'right' frequency gives us a
hologram etc). What allows us to intergrate all of these 'different'
specialisations, these different boxes, is understanding that all of the
different words all point to the SAME GENERAL set of qualities - understand
the set of qualities and 'decoding' the specialisations becomes easier ;-)
... THAT set of qualities is our 'table' for lookup (still favour a more
'wave' perspective though...)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus