Re: SUO: Re: Finding an upper ontology
Richard Cooper wrote in:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09686.html
[snip]
>
> This is an excellent presentation of the concepts
> underlying human language. It also points out a
> simple concept for storing language statements
> is simply <key><object><attribute><value><author>.
> So all language statements can be made in a five
> column relation.
> However, searching such a relation is an enormous
> computing task. So clearly there is a need for
> more comprehensive descriptions of the base relation.
> These "index" relations can be nearly any form, just
> so long as they refer to the <key> values of the
> statements.
> But this leads to the next question; how can we
> organize the index relations? The answer to that
> question tends to defeat the "simplification" of
> putting all statements into the single base relation.
> Any comments on this issue?
> Thanks,
> Rich
Philosophers and metaphysicians are not going to take you seriously
if you pretend to tackle the problem only at some syntactic level,
that is, by looking at the common structure of sentences (yet, above the lexical level of character
codes and XML tags).
PARADOXICALLY that might be the way to go!
Because, (witness the arguments between John Sowa and Stephen Downes in:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg09664.html)
reaching an agreement on MEANING, even the meaning of "nothing" is probably hopeless!
There is no more reason for two people or groups to be able to agree on the
ontological status of principles and ideas than to agree on more concrete definitions.
I bet that there is even LESS chances to agree on philosophy and metaphysics
than to agree on dogs, cars or vegetables.
We look kinda doomed!
But, are not we talking to each other at this very moment?
And does not those furious postings make SOME sense to everybody?
Of course, surely not the same sense to everyone, but there is some SHARED meaning,
albeit the "share" could be different and differently distorted for each of us.
I guess that we can do that because we assume that for each word, the intended meaning is somewhat
"close"
to our own understanding of this word, while keeping in mind that it is likely
NOT exactly what the other meant.
(here I am presumtuously assuming some wisdom from the listener...)
By assuming "similar" meanings of the same word used by different locutors
we get perilously close to the "Cyc philosophy" (identical meanings) which is known to fail.
But nevertheless we are using IDENTICAL words and syntax!
The significant difference is that, as humans, we seem able to deal with some
"slack" or "fuzz" in the semantic and still maintain some consistency in the logic.
Not that much, misunderstandings and flawed arguments run everyday,
but we are "good enough" at this kind of communication.
Computers are certainly NOT "good enough" at vagueness (let's forget ambiguity for a moment).
So, this might be the TRUE QUESTION:
Which kind of vagueness are we using that allow us to maintain a semblance of logic
and how can we make computers mimic that?
Here, I DO NOT suggest "fuzzy logic", bayesian statistics, etc...
These have been tried (tinkered with...) to no avail.
I just mean to state a QUESTION.
Cheers.
-- Jean-Luc Delatre
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Always do right - this will gratify some and astonish the rest."
-- Mark Twain (1835-1910)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.club-internet.fr/jld/ -- GSM: +33 6 11 24 06 29