RE: ONT Inquiry Driven Learning Environments
very nicely put.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:02 PM
To: Jon Awbrey
Cc: Inquiry; Ontology
Subject: Re: ONT Inquiry Driven Learning Environments
Jon Awbrey wrote:
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> IDLE. Note 1
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> | Author: Jon Awbrey
> | Version: Draft 4.00
> | Created: 10 Sep 1993
> | Revised: 20 Oct 2003
>
> Extensions Of Mind: Essays And Reports On Intelligent Systems
>
> 1. Components of Intelligence
>
> 1.1. Abstract of Argument
>
> A threefold scheme is proposed for organizing the various
> functions of intelligence. Three generic categories are
> outlined that cut across multiple levels of reasoning and
> representation and that serve to classify in broad terms
> a multitude of more specialized components. These three
> modalities are intended to be regarded as components of
> intelligence more in the mathematical sense of the word,
> that is, as generative dimensions of variation, and not
> of necessity in the mereological sense of "components",
> that is, spatially discrete and localized parts.
>
> These abstract components or schematic categories may be labelled
> as "deductive", "inductive", and "abductive", when considered as
> types of reasoning, or as "syntactic", "semantic", and "pragmatic",
> when treated as aspects of representation.
[...]
You threw me for a bit of a loop. Is there a direct corollary
relationship between the two triples of abstract components or
schematic categories, and perhaps in Peirce's principles, as in:
deductive <-------> syntactic <-------> Firstness
inductive <-------> semantic <-------> Secondness
abductive <-------> pragmatic <-------> Thirdness
Or am I jumping the gun and the answer to this coming up?
> [...] It is a working hypothesis
> of the philosophy that I am taking up here that these three dimensions
> are irreducible and exhaustive, at least when they are taken at their
> own proper level of approximation, but the character of their relative
> independence as dimensions does not seem to involve that of interacting
> trivially with each other. In fact, the evidence of my own experience
> with implementing some fraction of their capabilities leads me to the
> following provisional conclusion: In order to build a live, real-time
> capacity for "understanding" it will be necessary to integrate all three
> of these dimensions of intelligence so thoroughly about a common family
> of data structures that each of the distinct aspects will operate more
> like an alternate perspective on the same facts than as a separately
> embodied module of code. Along the way, partly in support of this
> deliberately short list of functionalities, a particular slant
> on the aims of AI will be advanced.
This was what I was referring to in my response to Richard Cooper
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11374.html
in stating that knowledge systems cannot be built without such a
core. I like the idea that all three are essentially facets of the
same essential facts, inseparable, a holism. So I'm eager to see this
one fleshed out.
Murray
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
Monkeys use thoughts to control robotic arm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/13/MN2018.DTL
Bush uses media expertly to push apocalyptic view
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091403J.shtml