RE: ARE: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Party of Citizens
> Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2002 2:09
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: Re: ARE: SUO: Automated or Semiautomated Ontology Development
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Chris Lofting wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that you can do this as translating nonverbal
> impulses at the preconscious if not unconscious level, into conscious
> verbalization has been stock in trade for clinical psychology over the
> past century.
>
Sure but thats not the point. Expression, verbalisation, derives its meaning
in neurocognitive processes and it is they that need identification - the
feelings shared across the many species as well as those particularised
within the individual and so the structure of the feelings that drive the
expression. The focus needs to be on communication regardless of species in
that all species, all of the differences, still seem to share the SAME
methodologies determined by the structure and function of the neuron.
If you focus immediately on humans you get dragged into linguistics that has
a degree (or 'feel') for hard-coding noun-verb distinctions and focusing on
'precision' serial communications. There is more happening than this and it
is that 'more' that supports the serial; it is that 'more' that elicits
'ontologies' formations etc - the 'drive' to derive a parts list to use in
interpretation, in the categorisation, of the universe.
The A/NOT-A focus on precision avoids the issue where A/NOT-A share the same
space and CONTEXT acts to determine what is expressed. As such all objects
are interpretable as relationships and all relationships are interpretable
as objects. This area of shared space, context dependencies etc is also the
space of sensory paradox where the moment a state develops where A/NOT-A
oscillate we immediately say 'paradox', 'illogical' and move away - wrong
thing to do.
The abstraction of this realm of the excluded middle, a realm full of these
entanglements, these
'possibilities', and as such reflective of 'out there', is expressed in such
forms as the state vector of QM.
Mindless evolution has led to the development of extreme diversity but
maintained a degree of sameness - IOW limb development is a standard; the
expression is diverse but the principle is a standard. Metabolism is
standard. Communications is standard. The expressions depend on context,
degree of species development etc etc but for AI systems we need to go
beyond just trying to copy 'us' in that we are in a position to identify the
core elements of neuron-based communications that are the standard and as
such can adapt to any context and that includes any form using any type of
sensory system and from that system zoom-in for details and do parts-list
creation.
As such the focus is on a 'meaning' module, a plug-in, where sensory data is
converted to 'objects and relationships' terms that can be communicated to
other modules and decoded into the unique sensory data that another form
'understands'.
In our species we seem to function off sensory harmonics - frequencies,
wavelengths, amplitudes 'rule' - such that data from vision can be combined
with, or transformed into, an auditory, gustatory, olfactory, or kinesthetic
'experience/expression' (and all can be compressed into a superposition that
reflects the 'whole' experience as well as maintain 'unique' aspects that
are strictly within the bounds of a unique sense)
The processing of information seems to stem from the development of the
neuron combined with the endocrine system - general purpose hormone
signalling gets particularised, specialised to the level of 1:1
(neurotransmitters/neuromodulators being hormones allowing neuron-to-neuron
communications) and 1:many (some neurons release hormones into the blood
system, motor neurons flood muscles etc and so a 'full' circle in hormone
communications. Olfactory neurons have multiple cilia extending from their
dendrites that 'hang' into the nasal cavity and there is interaction of
olfactory data with taste data to give us a sense of flavour - all of these
differences 'reduces' to object/relationship distinctions)
Context, such as seasonal changes, elicit hormonal changes that can activate
instincts where the instincts/habits are encoded in the dendrites of
neurons. This reflects PUSH (also note above comments re smell cilia)
Such basics as biological clock resets are set-off, for example, by the
ganglion cells of the eye causing the release of a hormone to signal the
reset (IOW it is not just rods and cones that manage inputs - they reflect
refinements (as does the operation of the parafovea/fovea which reflect (or
are reflected in) the general operations of left hemisphere(fovea)/right
hemisphere(parafovea) of the neocortex (and even the pseudo-hemispheres of
the limbic system and even the RAS) - note also that the three main cell
types of the eye, sensory, bipolar (intergration), and ganglion are
reflected in an abstract form as a neuron (sensory:dendrites, bipolar:soma,
axon:gaglion))
The structure and function of the neuron seems to have been abstracted to
'high level' communications - which is 'logical' in that a system that works
so well is not replaced - there may be variations in structure but the
general form is retained over millions of years.
Thus in various species, and in particular us, the recruitment/abstraction
of neurons, where the networks are all synchronised to 'fire' as if 'one',
means a development path 'all the way up' where neural columns, lobes,
hemispheres are all reflections of the neuron.
it is in the realm of non-verbal communications, and so the GENERAL, that we
need to focus attention and identify what is possible, how it can be
refined, and THEN add-in the precision of verbal communications as a 'local
requirement'; verbalisation emphasises expression, grammar rules apply
WITHIN the confines of the verbalisation - the focus is at the more general
level where the words etc cause resonance in the pool of 'qualities' we
share as a species but there is also the implication that the same qualities
in a less refined form are shared in all other species that use the neuron.
The self-referencing process elicits the set of qualities at an unconscious
level. Context will customise (and in some contexts qualities may never be
experienced or experienced only in a 'weak' format whereas other qualities
may be overexagerated - deemed to be the 'only' qualities and all else false
etc.)
> But I think we could start with the beginnings of verbalization at around
> two years of age and I see no reason why we cannot pass the Turing Test at
> that level. We know enough about the stimulus conditions and norms for
> appropriate verbal responses.
>
> Then we move up the developmental scale, month-by-month and year-by-year.
>
...as part of the focus on verbal communications, sure, but the feedback
from the collective can act to distort perceptions and so distort
categorisations. Focus on 'what is possible given objects/relationships' can
allow the identification of categories. e.g. my comments on Peirce's 'error'
(and Hegel et al before him) deal with the consequences of, and recruitment
and abstraction of those consequences, not clearly defining categories where
dynamic categories are ignored - all of the categories are deemed to be
'static' and so a more object emphasis caused by the high energy focus.
High energy focus, high energy thought, will introduce physiological
processes that distort perceptions and introduce the concept of 'the
eternal' as well as allow for such concepts as time being reversible. It is
the high degree of precision that introduces these concepts and they in turn
become 'facts', encoded into our ontology which is used to 'interpret'
reality.
The concepts introduced are not a property of reality 'as is' but of reality
'as interpreted'. To get at the range of what is possible means to focus on
'as is' - on the general - which means putting-off specific sense analysis
other than recognising 'objects/relationships' as well as recognising
objects FROM relationships, relationships FROM objects and dynamic
categorisations where we identify A/NOT-A oscillations as a category which
does NOT necessarily mean 'illogical - dont touch'.
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