[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Paul Stephen Prueitt wrote (PSP):
W.M. Jaworski wrote (WMJ):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):
PSP: I am not sure which of the forums this will be posted to.
I have left the Topic Maps forum because there is no response
to the issues that I have very carefully brought up.
PSP: Arisbe and "Stand! Unfold! Ontology!" are unknown to me.
I post this to com-prac because the discussion is essential
to defending community of practice work from those who insist
that the IT is the most important part of collaborative tools.
Information about the Arisbe List, whose charge is something on the order
of "e-Peirce!" -- to ask how the pragmatudes of Peirce and the webwork of
our brave modworld may best serve each other as we lurk into the future --
can be found at:
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/arisbe
http://stderr.org/pipermail/arisbe
The trinicker "Stand! Unfold! Ontology!" is just my address book niche-name
for the "ONTology" Sublist of the IEEE "Standard Upper Ontology" (SUO) Agora
and Working Group. There are actually four subfora associated with this body,
ONT being the Brand X Generic one. Information about these e-fora is here:
http://suo.ieee.org
http://suo.ieee.org/refs.html
http://suo.ieee.org/links.html
http://suo.ieee.org/email
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology
http://suo.ieee.org/suo-ce
http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif
PSP: There is the computer science and the human science, and these two viewpoints
must be balanced if **Value Propositions** are to pay out a return on investment.
***
JA: Okay, maybe, but I wasted far too many years playing the viscous circuits of
declarative/procedural volleyball to want to go through that again, which is
why I left cogsci for a better refereed net. Provisionally, though, if you
declare "declarative" to mean something like the kind of fully critical and
more or less reflective knowledge that it takes, in the ideal, to write out
an explicit axiomset for a domain, a grammar for a language, or a program
for a recursive function, then I think that I can go along with that.
PSP: I also feel a waste of my time and of the time of our society
on this declarative/procedural distinction.
PSP: I read through John Sowa scholarly work that he posted at:
JFS: http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnetw.htm
PSP: and the history is familiar. But as I read this history,
I keep asking the question, "what is missing here?"
PSP: Tulving is referenced on page 1, but this is the 1972 work that Tulving
specifically deconstructs, and disavows, in the 1980s and the 1990s.
The 80's were like that, yeah they were.
PSP: In the volume edited by Schacter and Tulving ('Memory' 1993)
the best minds in human memory research essentially say that
the earlier distinction between semantic memory and episodic
memory can not be supported by the modern empirical work.
PSP: quote from Schacter and Tulving page 2:
S&T: | The fact that concern with the neural mechanisms underlying psychological manifestations
| of memory and knowledge was absent in the earliest thought about different forms of memory
| is not surprising. On the one hand, there was little understanding of the brain at the time,
| and thus the neural influence was necessarily absent. On the other hand, the doctrine of
| associationism held almost universal sway over philosophical and psychological thinking
| about memory, rendering any kind of physiologizing superfluous. Moreover, the associative
| doctrine was dominated by the idea that all expressions of memory could be attributed to the
| functioning of a single associative mechanism, an idea that is still around even today.
PSP: What is missing is the modern view of cognitive neuroscience.
I do not mean Pat Churchland's work or other work that is
developed (strongly supported by NSF) in a specific means
to support the hard AI position, but rather the core
experimental work on understanding the biology of
cognition and behavior.
And here I had not thought you were such a modernist
that you would let youself to fall into that modern,
all too modern habit of using the holy word "modern"
in lieu of any argument as to why a teaching is true.
PSP: This is a difficult discussion with the strong AI camp.
The discussion brings to bear the modern research on
human memory and anticipation as a means to try to
deconstruct the strong AI position.
It is generaly considered a clash of genres and quite unfashionable
to resort to both the word "modern" and the word "deconstruct" in
one and the same text.
PSP: As Tulving and Schacter state, there is deeper evidence about memory
and this deeper evidence does not support specific previous viewpoints --
from which both strong AI and much of connectionism is derived.
PSP: It is a consuming debate, requiring continual review of books
and the writing and rewriting of e-forum communications.
PSP: This process might go on for a few more days.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OntologyStream
is an open forum, where those wishing to
discuss this may gather.
PSP: I, and my colleagues, want to try to establish a new position (change a mind)
but realize that we may just increase our own understanding of the entrenchment
of strong AI. In phone discussions on this, it is clear that entrenched positions
will not allow principled argument -- and often fail back into claims that some harm
is being done to the good paradigm. One is not allowed to bring up the fact that there
are no intelligent computer programs out there. There are no computer programs out there
that are a "they". There are no computer programs out there that "know".
I know, I know. But what makes you think you know that I am not a machine?
I think I know. But what makes you think you know that I am not a program?
I know I think. But what makes you think you know that I am not a poem?
PSP: The language used is simply wrong and misleading. By pointing this out,
my camp does not begin talking about "God" or a theory of everything,
we are just pointing out a clear fact that the AI community continues
to be in denial about. The behavior of those entrenched minds is
scandalous to science as a discipline.
PSP: One of the reasons why I have spent most of my life looking to develop a bead game
that converts topics in a e-forum, or other discussion, into a machine knowledge
ontology is so that the slight of hand used by the entrenched camps can be
revealed for what they are. The **Value proposition** is that by shining
light on why the current investment in IT technology are not paying off,
society might benefit form a new epoch.
{[(<| Or, better yet, a new epoche. |>)]}
PSP: Important problems, like Computer Intrusion Detection (CID) or Situational Decision Support,
just require an easier interface between human communities and the data structures. We need
less strong AI religion and more agility in the data structures. And this interface requires
an understanding of the fundamental difference between a finite state machine and a human mind
or a human community. In the CID world the situation is special, in that the attackers mush act
via the computer ... and so AI done right has a chance of doing much more than it is doing now.
But ... there are still the problem that AI is not non-stationary in the same way as a natural
system.
PSP: http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter2.htm
PSP: I ask John Sowa to make a comment about the fact that Tulving has declared his former views,
regarding the distinction between semantic and episodic memory, as being a distinction that
has been found to be lacking. Are we simply to ignore this history?
History shows that ignoring history
becomes easier and easier over time.
PSP: If science cannot walk away from an establish paradigm,
when evidence sets it aside, then why have a notion of
falsification at all?
Good question.
Post*Sincerely Yours,
Post*Modern Jon
P.S. Post*Modern = Modern + PostModern + PostPostModern + PostPostPostModern + ...
J.A.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@yahooGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@yahooGroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC