Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

E.R.O.S.

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 94 Ad

More Related Content

Similar to E.R.O.S. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

E.R.O.S.

  1. 1. Making Sense of Concepts How do our ideas hit the mark? Shinning a light on sensibility. 1 E.R.O.S. The Quadranym Word-Sensibility Model
  2. 2. What’s in a word? 2 Making Sense of Concepts The task is to collect commonsense knowledge. How much information about the world is contained in a single word?
  3. 3. “I know nothing in the world that has as much power as a word. Sometimes I write one, and I look at it, until it begins to shine.” –– Emily Dickinson 3 Making Sense of Concepts
  4. 4. 4 Q: Why can’t computers use language like people do? A: People experience the world, computers don’t. Making Sense of Concepts
  5. 5. Interacting with the world produces instances of coherent sense, some of which are apparent in the words we use. The Premise 5 Making Sense of Concepts
  6. 6. There is a distinction to be made between a coherent sense of a word and the potential conditions it may aim at in the world. Coherent Sense Conditional Sense 6 Making Sense of Sense
  7. 7. Coherent Sense Conditional Sense • A desire to eat points to hungry as being a coherent sense of eat. • What food you’ll have to eat becomes a conditional factor of eat. Corpus: eat I prepared a nice bird! What are we having to eat? Corpus: eat 7 Non-declarative: hungry Declarative: food Word: eat Making Sense of Sense
  8. 8. Conditional Sense Denote EAT Denote BIRD The verb Eat and the noun Bird together form a complete unit of thought, “Eat bird.” That much is clear, what isn’t clear is how they are categorized as objects of experience. Let’s say Robin functions like a prototype to provide one with an actual sense of the word, Bird. Hungry is able to do a similar task for the word, Eat. Each sense-word acts as a coherent core for their perspective denotations. The sense of "bird" (“robin”) converges with the sense of "eat" ("hungry") to produce birds that experience indicates as likely menu options. robin hungry Potential Foods Potential Birds Find Meaning Find Meaning potential potential actual actual Coherent Sense 8 Making Sense of Sense
  9. 9. Motivation: “Eat bird.” Object: food Condition-Potential Judgment: “Eat bird.” Standpoint: hungry Coherent-Actual 9 Making Sense of Sense
  10. 10. Every word in every language is defined relative to a frame. ― Charles Fillmore 10 Making Sense of Sense
  11. 11. Actual (self-sense) Potential (world-sense) Word (that-sense) EAT mode=sate state=hungry state=food mode=starve Q-Unit: Levels 11 States: actual = hungry ⊇ potential = food Modes: potential = sate ⊇ actual = starve level pertaining to rules of grammar level pertaining to potential target level pertaining to actual source Conceptualizing States: FROM actual-being TO potential-becoming Conceptualizing Modes: FROM potential-action TO actual-measure Making Sense of Sense
  12. 12. “When one encounters a new situation (or makes a substantial change in one's view of the present problem) one selects from memory a structure called a Frame. This is a remembered framework to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary.” ― Marvin Minsky 12 Making Sense of Sense
  13. 13. 13 The Objective Field (Deliberative Framework) Source: hungry Include: Selector Target: food Exclude: Critic • Input • Rerun • Value • Output • Return • Expense actual potential potential actual robin bird Q-Unit system1 & Network system2 Closing The Loop (Q-Unit: Heuristic-Framework) Making Sense of Sense
  14. 14. “Framing is the most ordinary thing we do. A frame is a coherent structure of related concepts so to help make sense of things. ” ― George Lakoff 14 Making Sense of Sense
  15. 15. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guide EAT Eat Eat oven satisfy hunger roast cook kitchen savory Eat survive Eat follow recipe Eat swallow HasSubevent M o t i v a t e d B y G o a l M t iv t e d B y G o a l C e a t e d B y CausesDesire Desires D e s i r e s HasPropert y HasProperty U s e d F o r U s e d F o r A lt Lo ca ti o n CapableOf H a s P r e r e q u i s i t e U s e d F o r U s e d F o r UsedFor IsA LocationOf 15 2. See, Two system of thinking - Thinking Fast and Slow (Kahnerman12) IsA U s e d F o r UsedFor person food domesticate CeatedBy poultry 3. Semantic network common sense representation - http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html See Also, Open Mind Common Sense (Singh, P.[42])) D e s i r e s Liminal Point: Heuristic Dynamic Prototype: robin 1. See, Mental Framing - Metaphors We Live By (Lakoff, Johnson[28]) 4. Q-units are like capacitors, See menu, Q Theory Introduction Heuristic Store CausesDesire UsedFor Bird Books, Publications & General References Drive Actual-Source State-hungry Mode-starve Potential-Target State-food Mode-sate Making Sense of Sense
  16. 16. “By their very nature, heuristic shortcuts will produce biases, and that is true for both humans and artificial intelligence, but the heuristics of AI are not necessarily the human ones.” ― Daniel Kahneman 16 Making Sense of Sense
  17. 17. Objective State: condition-potential Target Action & Measure Modes Subjective State: coherent-actual Source Hungry E=sate Poultry is Food R=starve Robin not Poultry Eat: • The probable conclusion is drawn from the statement, “Eat bird”. • Robin is not bird in eat frame of system 1. • Eat frame is now in discord with bird frame of system 1. Poultry is Bird Robin not Bird Selector: potential Critic: actual Deliberative Analysis Categorical Resolution System2 17 Making Sense of Sense (Heuristic Analysis System1)
  18. 18. “Your frame of reference is what you see.” ― Jacque Fresco 18 Making Sense of Sense
  19. 19. nutrition Subjective hungry EAT Food Objective ingest Bird Poultry S = function O = structure O = exclusive S = inclusive survive Coherent à Conditional Coherent à Conditional ⊇ potential actual actual actual potential potential actual potential actual potential actual potential 19 Input......................... by _actual:[S _eat à O _bird] Output:.......... by _potential:[S _food à O _poultry] Self Is Here Actual S = hungry Inclusive E = bird Potential O = food Exclusive R = poultry actual potential Nested States Hierarchy: FROM General TO Relevant Arrows = Dynamic Sense Making Sense of Sense
  20. 20. “The only source of knowledge is experience.” ― Albert Einstein 20 Making Sense of Concepts
  21. 21. Motion Matter Passive Active 0 ENERGY 21 modes Energy:(∀x) Energy(x) ⟹ [Active(motion)⊇ Passive(matter)](x) states Eat(x) Energy(x) Multi-Organizational Dynamics Making Sense of Concepts
  22. 22. Expansive sate, active Objective food, matter Subjective hungry, motion Reductive starve, passive Topic eat à energy Quadranym Square (Prime Dimensions) 0 22 Making Sense of Concepts
  23. 23. 23 Unit: [Nutrient(hungry) ⊇ Matter(Energy)] Flux: a sense driven by the environment. Unit: remembering how that sense has been driven before. Flux:[Actual(potential)] → [Potential(actual)] Unit:[Potential(actual) → Actual(potential)] Flux is a double bracket: [b] → [a] Unit is a single bracket: [a → b] Flux:[Matter(energy)] à [Nutrient(hungry)] Remember-ing Environmental-ing Subjective a Objective b Subjective a Objective b See Q Scripts in menu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Script Units See Q layers, Q-Unit goals form discrete hierarchies, realms and domains Making Sense of Concepts
  24. 24. 24 [Matter(energy)] à [Nutrient(hungry)] Passive-Potential Objective Guided Active-Actual Subjective Driven Unit:[Potential(actual)⊇Actual(potential)] Flux:[Actual(Potential)] à [Potential(actual)] Causal Flux Environmental Driver Situational Context “Eat Bird” Subjective Sense Objective Sense Experience indicates likely menu options. Making Sense of Concepts Script Cycles
  25. 25. “We are storytelling creatures, and as children we acquire language to tell those stories that we have inside us.” ― Jerome Bruner 25 Making Sense of Concepts
  26. 26. I want chocolate mousse! I understand… but you’re telling me this, why? In our model, once motivated, the listener’s intention is to find cues in the content so to sync with oscillating coherent and conditional factors. Intimating Mental States Pierre Marie 26 Making Sense of Concepts
  27. 27. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Resolve(belief)] à [Urge(desire)] 27 Conditional Sense Coherent Sense Causal Flux Marie: agent (cf., semantic role) [S _self à O _desire] [S _desire à O _proposition] [S _proposition à O _denote] [S _denote à O _utter] [S _utter à O _proposition] [S _proposition à O _other] Pierre: patient (cf., semantic role) [S _other à O _hear] [S _hear à O _Proposition] [S _proposition à O _cause] [S _cause à O _intention] [S _intention à O _proposition] [S _proposition àO _denote] [S _denote à O _instantiate] [S _instantiate à O _That_Proposition] Scripts . !, See, Intimating process of uttered signs. (Husserl, E., [23]) Note, Representing causal flux FROM reference TO sense in a Q script driver Urge & Resolve Cycle Making Sense of Concepts
  28. 28. “Thinking is an active verb, think-ing. It means you are doing something. One thing you are doing is criticizing your thoughts, seeing whether they cohere. And if they don’t, you begin to change them and experiment with others. You get new intuitions, new insights.” ― David Bohm 28 Making Sense of Concepts
  29. 29. See, Q Theory Introduction in site menu. Also See, The Principle of the Orientation of Interactivity in posts: post 6 Continuous Singularity E: active-potential Discrete Multiplicity R: passive-actual 29 active-actual passive-potential Coherent Sense Conditional Sense Selector: perceiving Critic: percepts How about Cupcakes? sigh * * That would be great Sameness Difference ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making Sense of Concepts
  30. 30. “To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life.” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein 30 Making Sense of Concepts
  31. 31. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Environmental CAUSE of Concepts 31 The Birth of a Notion 1, See, : Pre-cognitive Conditions, Immanent with the Sensible before Transcendental Categories - Phenomenology of Perception (Merleau-Ponty[*]) Making Sense of Concepts
  32. 32. -------------------------------------------------------------- [urge _hunger à resolve _food]<find> [urge _food à resolve _fish] <find> [urge _fish à resolve _water] <find> [urge _water à resolve _dive] <find> [urge _dive à resolve _swim]<find> [urge _swim à resolve _catch] <find> [urge _catch à resolve _eat] <find> [urge _eat à resolve _sate] <stop> SCRIPT See, Cognition as Agent/Environment Dynamics (Chemero[5] ) 32 Urge & Resolve Cycles. Making Sense of Concepts
  33. 33. 33 “The meaning or value of a thing consists of what it affords.” ― James J. Gibson Making Sense of Concepts
  34. 34. TABLE Bench scaffold chair roof … e = raise r = flat o = top s = surface ? 34 [Objective(surface)]<find>[Subjective(surface)] • The coherent (pre-reflective) state affords actual questions. • The conditional (reflective) state affords potential answers. Making Sense of Concepts
  35. 35. table subjective offPut object objective onSet surface subjective objective objective subjective potential actual actual Potential actual Potential 35 actual potential Urge(desire) Resolve(belief) [OffPut(rest) à OnSet(surface)] rest beer Making Sense of Concepts
  36. 36. “To understand is to experience harmony between what we aim at and what is given, between the intention and the performance - and the body is our anchorage in the world. ” ― Maurice Merleau-Ponty 36 Making Sense of Concepts
  37. 37. 37 Procedural Scripts: Hungry:[urge = eat à resolve = stick]<find> Making Sense of Concepts
  38. 38. 38 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2, See, Present-At-Hand, Ready-To-Hand (Heidegger[*]) 1, See, Phenomenology of Perception: Pre-cognitive Conditions, Immanent with the Sensible before Transcendental Categories (Merleau-Ponty[*]) Task Oriented Perception[2] [subjective-actual _eat à objective-potential _coconut ]<find> Polynym Dimensions[3] Eat(x) Flesh(x) Coconut(x) Open(x) Smash(x) 3, See, image schema - The Body in the Mind (Johnson M., 1990[*]) Books, Publications & General References Making Sense of Concepts
  39. 39. [Subjective _coconut à objective _rock]<find>[Subjective _rock à objective _smash]<find> [Subjective _smash à objective _coconut]<find>[Subjective _coconut à objective _open]<find> Predicate: tool Predicate: hard Causal Flux[1] FROM Actual(potential) TO Potential(actual) 39 [S _open à O _flesh]<find>[S _flesh à O _chew]<find>[S _chew à O _swallow]<stop> Predicate: food Predicate: soft FROM Actual(potential) TO Potential(actual) Causal Flux ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1, Causal flux in this instance can also be referred to as a Modal Flux. Note, Q scripts join almost like a centipede where each locomotion system sends signal to the next system. Script Making Sense of Concepts
  40. 40. 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2, See, image schema - The Body in the Mind (Johnson M., 1990[*]) 1, See, : Pre-cognitive Conditions, Immanent with the Sensible before Transcendental Categories - Phenomenology of Perception (Merleau-Ponty[*]) Meta-Dimensional Roles Content Dimensional Roles Bias Eat(x) Goal Flesh(x) Motivate Coconut(x) Task Open(x) Modify Smash(x) Eat(x) (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Sate(hungry) ⊇ Starve(food)(x)] (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Intact(chew) ⊇ Fragment(substance)(x)] (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Available(consume) ⊇ Deplete(resource)(x)] (∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Stable(corrode) ⊇ Disintegrate(substance)(x)] Books, Publications & General References Making Sense of Concepts
  41. 41. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Context Cycle Rate Subjective Objective 1. Bias –––––– cycle rate Negative a Positive b 2. Motivate ––– cycle rate Urge a Resolve b 3. Task –––––– cycle rate Motivate a Goal b 4. Modify –––– cycle rate Function a Structure b 5. Manipulate – cycle rate Control a Conform b 41 See, Ready-To-Hand includes a larger purpose (Heidegger, 1927) M-role Information can influence between layers and levels. Hierarchy: General to Relevant Cycles Making Sense of Concepts
  42. 42. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. [S = Negative à O = Positive]: bias (self conscious – emotions)* 2. [S = Urge à O = Resolve]: motivate (self reflective - emotional thinking)* 3. [S = Motivate à O = Goal]: plan (reflection on world - thinking)* 4. [S = Function à O = Structure]: modify (deliberative reaction - thinking)* 5. [S = Control à O = Conform]: manipulate (learned - reaction)* 6. [S = Be à O = Become]: transform (instinctive - reaction)* *See, Six level Model (Minsky35) 42 Making Sense of Concepts
  43. 43. 43 Making Sense of Sense “'Facts, facts, facts,' cries the scientist if he wants to emphasize the necessity of a firm foundation for science. What is a fact? A fact is a thought that is true. But the scientist will surely not recognize something which depends on men's varying states of mind to be the firm foundation of science.” – Gottlob Frege
  44. 44. Potential A STATE Of A STAR It is Phosphorus NOT Hesperus for all to see No more experience is necessary So now let’s go have our morning tea The same for you is the same for me Making Sense of Sense That Star:(∀x) star(x) ⟹ [Above(earth)⊇ Below(light)](x) Actual The Sense & Reference of a Denotation[1] : 1. Sense and reference are identical to themselves a=a. 2. Different senses can reference same denotation a=b. That Star Same: The Sense Phosphorus = That Star Phosphorus[1] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.See, Sense and Reference (Frege G,[13]) 2. Sense and reference play particular ontological roles and provide relational descriptions between Q-Unit dimensions. 44
  45. 45. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That Star:[Phosphorus à morning] That Star:[Hesperus à evening] • Identical reference to one object (a=a): no more experience necessary (Sense & Reference = passive difference). • Nonidentical reference to one object (a=b): more experience necessary (Sense & Reference = active sameness). General Topic: Position:[Coherent-actual = Appearanceà Condition-potential = time and space] That Planet:[Venus ⊇ Phosphorus and Hesperus] passive passive active 45 1. See, Sense and Reference(Frege G,[13])2. See, Twin Earth "'meanings' just ain't in the head.”(Putnam H,[*]) Making Sense of Sense No No, that’s not true The same for me is a difference for you Phosphorus and Hesperus are both Venus all the way She disappears and reappears at different times of day But remember… water is the same for all to see Except on twin earth where it’s XYZ ”’meanings' just ain't in the head.”[2] It’s all around us in the world insteadJ Difference: The Sense Phosphorus and The Sense Hesperus = That Planet Venus[1] Books, Publications & General References
  46. 46. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subjective Ontology (Active Hemisphere) E=solar system S=astronomer[3] Objective Ontology (Passive Hemisphere) O=planet R=second Mode Mode Quadranym Intentionality logic Reference Sense Expansive-Subjective attitude premise context Mode of context representation[1] Reductive-Objective proposition conclusion object Mode of object representation[1] Use of Concept[2] Truth Condition[2] Theme-Topic: Venus 2, See, Use of Concept, Language Game, Truth Conditions,’ (Wittgenstein[24,25]) context object Implicates Active Sameness: more experience necessary Implicates Passive Difference: no more experience necessary 46 1, See, Modes of Representation (Frege[13] ) Making Sense of Sense 3, S=astronomy can also fit theme-topic S _role Potential Actual potential interactions with the world actual contexts of experience
  47. 47. “We think in generalities, but we live in detail.” ― Alfred North Whitehead 47 Making Sense of Sense
  48. 48. 48 Making Sense of Sense
  49. 49. Quantifying Spatiality: Door is configured such that, Barrier B is the conditional category of the coherent category Passage P IFF Door D is a conditional category of the coherent category Space S. • Coherent P is all S • Condition B is some S • by _Space: [Coherent = void ⊇ Condition = between{door, passage, barrier...}] • ∀x: Sx → DPBx = coherent: Open(door) • ∃x: Sx → DPBx = conditional: Close(door) 49 Making Sense of Sense
  50. 50. 50 Making Sense of Sense
  51. 51. “To exist as an individual means not simply to be numerically distinct from other things but to be a self-pole in a dynamic relationship with alterity, with what is other, with the world.” ― Evan Thompson 51 Making Sense of Sense
  52. 52. By _space: [Subjective = void ⊇ Objective = door] Subjective Space Open Subjective State: passage y x subjective state: barrier Reductive mode Expansive mode 0 Close 0 Subjective State: Void Finite Infinite 52 Making Sense of Sense The zero-point of any Q-concept is a self identification opportunity. pass y X impasse Reductive mode Expansive mode 0 Subjective State: [_solid]<find>[_condition] 0 y x
  53. 53. A real-world locked door means the subjectivity of the concept is denied leaving one faced with only the objectivity of the concept. Still, as cued, it’s a door, because control of Door is categorically there even if not actually there. S = dooràControl/Actual O = dooràConform/Potential Coherent space Conditional space Door[passage à barrier] Open Subjective State: passage Objective state: barrier Reductive mode (-) Expansive mode (+) 0 Close By _door: [Subjective = passage ⊇ Objective = barrier] Objective Space 53 Making Sense of Sense
  54. 54. Empty is coherently having space. Between is the condition transitioning space. Objective Network Conditional Roles Space Modes Subjective State Coherent Role void infinite exit out finite enter in potential potential actual actual Note: potential/actual arrows below are in relation to modes (not states). States: actual à potential Modes: potential à actual potential actual actual actual actual potential Space: 54 Making Sense of Sense
  55. 55. • Subjective: The entity void is ubiquitous to the topic of space by virtue of void’s singular principle in every condition of space. • Objective: The entity between is a multiplicity of principles, such as, entities and changing properties. One Small detail. 55 Making Sense of Sense
  56. 56. “I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, how much was mine to keep.” ― Kurt Vonnegut 56 Making Sense of Sense
  57. 57. 57 Making Sense of Sense
  58. 58. The Doors of Time… like we transition space, we transition time… and rarely the other way around. Everyone does it, we go to the edge of the pool and dip our toe in the water; if the temperature feels warm we enter quickly if cool we hesitate. The reason we hesitate to get into a nice pool on a nice hot day is often the change and not necessarily the temperature. Once calibrated to air temps our bodies will resist change because of how sensibility works. The notice of change is what concerns us. From: If not now when? To: If now then? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-or-warm-can-we-really-tell/ 58 Making Sense of Sense ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Test(swim)] à [Temp(change)] Conditional Sense Coherent Sense Causal Flux Remember-ing Loop Forms Units [Temp(change) à Test(swim)] driver Opportunity drives ability. Ability assesses opportunity.
  59. 59. Objective State Networks Conditional Roles Time Modes Subjective State Coherent Role present future swim water past test temp Present is coherently having time. Event is the condition transitioning time. potential potential actual potential actual actual potential actual Note: potential/actual arrows below are in relation to modes (not states). States: actual à potential Modes: potential à actual Time: 59 Making Sense of Sense
  60. 60. The everyday sense of time comes when Now becomes objectified. 60 Making Sense of Sense
  61. 61. What Now are we talking about? 61 Making Sense of Sense • Subjective: The entity present is ubiquitous to the topic of time by virtue of present's singular principle in every condition of time. • Objective: The entity Event is a multiplicity of principles, such as, entities and changing properties.
  62. 62. Different ways of Responding 62 Making Sense of Sense
  63. 63. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective Time future past event present Door open close barrier passage perception stimuli select organize interpret logic proposition conclusion evidence argument scientific hypothesis fact law theory science prediction test analysis hypothesis Quadranym Matrix 63 Making Sense of Sense
  64. 64. Expansive: novel, general. Reductive: familiar, specific. Objective: conditional notion. Subjective: coherent notion. General Domains Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective time future past event present door open close barrier passage perception stimuli select organize interpret logic proposition conclusion evidence argument scientific hypothesis fact law theory science prediction test analysis hypothesis 64 Making Sense of Sense
  65. 65. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective time future past event present door open close barrier passage perception stimuli select organize interpret logic proposition conclusion evidence argument scientific hypothesis fact law theory science prediction test analysis hypothesis Expansive: novel, general. Reductive: familiar, specific. Objective: conditional notion. Subjective: coherent notion. 65 Making Sense of Sense General Domains
  66. 66. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective time future past event present door open close barrier passage perception stimuli select organize interpret logic proposition conclusion evidence argument scientific hypothesis fact law theory science prediction test analysis hypothesis Expansive: novel, general. Objective: conditional organization. Subjective: coherent notion. Reductive: familiar, specific. 66 Making Sense of Sense General Domains
  67. 67. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective time future past event present door open close barrier passage perception stimuli select organize interpret logic proposition conclusion evidence argument scientific hypothesis fact law theory science prediction tested analysis hypothesis Reductive: familiar, specific. Objective: conditional notion. Subjective: coherent interpretation. Expansive: novel, general. 67 Making Sense of Sense General Domains
  68. 68. spatial expansive open large reductive close small Roles content Dimensions Domain potential potential actual actual 68 Making Sense of Sense Modes Complimentary Roles Spatial Relations of Locations
  69. 69. categorical expansive general inclusive reductive specific exclusive Dimensions Domain potential potential actual actual Roles content 69 Making Sense of Sense Modes Complimentary Roles Spatial Relations of Locations
  70. 70. mental expansive novel unknown reductive familiar known Dimensions Domain potential potential actual actual Roles content 70 Making Sense of Sense Modes Complimentary Roles Spatial Relations of Locations
  71. 71. Subjective ⊇ Objective States The Bias Roles Expansive ⊇ Reductive Modes The Difference Roles Actual ⊇ Potential State Set S ⊇ O Coherent ⊇ Conditional State Set S ⊇ O Function ⊇ Structure State Set S ⊇ O Control ⊇ Conform State Set S ⊇ O urge ⊇ resolve State Set S ⊇ O Negative ⊇ Positive State Set S ⊇ O Positive ⊕ Negative Mode Set E(+) ⊕ R(-) ∨ E(-) ⊕ R(+) Potential ⊇ Actual Mode set E ⊇ R General ⊇ Particular Mode set E ⊇ R Active ⊇ Passive Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o) Infinite ⊇ Finite Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o) Inclusive ⊇ Exclusive Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o) Singular ⊇ Multiple Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o) 71 Neg and Pos modes: Always Switchable Roles Switch Polarity Making Sense of Sense
  72. 72. 72 The Q Categorical Axiom: State: actual ⊇ potential Mode: potential⊇ actual Ontological Description: A State is an actual being. An actual being has a becoming; it is always a potential becoming. A Mode is potential action. A potential action has a difference; it is always an actual difference. actual potential potential actual State Mode Active Passive Dimensions exist in time. time How to think about The Quadranym. Making Sense of Sense
  73. 73. 73 The Drawbridge The states of a drawbridge determines one's crossing ability. To come upon a drawbridge one encounters its actual state as either a crossing state or a non-crossing state. The modes of a drawbridge refers to its actions. To refer to a drawbridge is to refer to its potential modes indicating the up or the down action. A simple way to help think about Quadranyms … actual potential potential actual State Active Passive Time & Goal Mode Making Sense of Sense
  74. 74. 74 The Q Categorical Axiom: State: actual ⊇ potential Mode: potential ⊇ actual The actual state is always the superset where cross-ability and non-cross-ability both exist. The potential state is the subset where only one of those states exists. The potential mode is always the superset where the up-ness and down-ness are both active measures. The actual mode is the subset where the actual difference is identified. Making Sense of Sense
  75. 75. potential actual action measure actual potential being becoming Being à Becoming Cycles Action à Measure Cycles States Active Passive Modes Active Passive Bias Actual ⊇ Potential Time Cycle Space Cycle A reciprocal dynamic between ability and opportunity to find resolution. 75 1. To encounter an active state refers to an experience of actual context and its potential in time, thus, pertaining to the actual state category. 2. To encounter an active mode refers to a potential action and its discerning actual measure, thus, pertaining to the potential mode category. The Q Categorical Axiom: State: actual ⊇ potential Mode: potential ⊇ actual Difference Drawbridge:[Potential{Up}(actual(self}) ⊇ Actual{Down}(potential{crossability)] The draw bridge is being in time The drawbridge is becoming in space Subject = Cross-ability Predicate = Up or Down Making Sense of Sense State = Temporal Sense Mode = Spatial Sense Potential ⊇ Actual
  76. 76. E=premise O=evidence S=claim R=conclusion argument Argument • Subjective: The entity claim is ubiquitous to the topic argument by virtue of claim’s singular principle of every condition of argument. • Objective: The entity evidence is a multiplicity of principles, such as, entities and changing properties. In conclusion, what we are proposing is a Quadranym Argument. 76 Making Sense of Sense
  77. 77. Prime Dimensions Quadranym & Polynym Acquisition 77 Making Sense of Concepts
  78. 78. Q Code Tags: qt, qe, qr, qo, qs (qe) expansive (qo) objective (qs) subjective (qr) reductive (qt) = topic THE QUADRANT GRAPH HELPS TO ILLUSTRATE DIMENSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, DIAGONAL, TOP & BOTTOM, LEFT & RIGHT 78 Framing a Topic Using The Quadranym Square Making Sense of Concepts
  79. 79. 79 Role: Expansive Role: Reductive Role: Subjective Role: Objective Positive Negative Pull Push We present an common sense knowledge acquisition effort to collect quadranym Polyordinate theoretical constructs, such as, in the examples given below. We use the term quadranym (literally, ‘four- words’) to mean four dimensional subordinate elements that defines a superordinate axiom. Making Sense of Concepts
  80. 80. All Qs are tested and certified by humans. To assist in this process a simple sorting program is used to read back quadranym constructs through an array of natural language scripts called expression-frames. Expression-frames are tailored to fit a specific realm or domain. (qt) = topic, (qe) = expansive, (qr) = reductive, (qo) = objective (qs)= subjective. It is correct to be (qe) instead of (qr) when the situation is (qo) but could have been (qs) when regarding (qt). Expression Frame Prime Quadranym 80 Making Sense of Concepts
  81. 81. qt = mood, qe = better, qr = worse, qo = happy, qs = sad It is correct to be (better) instead of (worse) when the situation is (happy) but could have been (sad) when regarding (mood). It is correct to be (worse) instead of (better) when the situation is (sad) but could have been (happy) when regarding (mood). People can quickly see if their Quadranym makes sense to them. qt = sensitivity, qe = soothed, qr = irritated, qo = comfort, qs = discomfort It is correct to be (soothed) instead of (irritated) when the situation is (comfort) but could have been (discomfort) when regarding (sensitivity). 81 Making Sense of Concepts
  82. 82. 82 Expression frame interface example. Making Sense of Concepts
  83. 83. 83 The Polynym Thesaurus A collection of topical dimensions of any number. • Quadranyms represent autogenously unitized contextual dimensions. • Polynyms represent strategically divided contextual dimensions For normal communications subjects are broken down into any number of dimensions. The Q system works on two levels, on the inter-personal level where all dimensions are configured as predicates, these are polynyms. On the intra-personal or responsive level only quadrant dimensions are used. Like quadranyms, polynyms can also be collected. Many polynyms already exist in the world since they represent any number of dimensions for strategic thinking. For example, Freud’s polynym (p3) , Psyche: Id, Ego, Superego. It is used as a strategy to understand the human mind. Making Sense of Concepts
  84. 84. Acquisition Interface example: basic (cf., html, Java, python) 84 We present an interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition effort to collect superordinate theoretical constructs, such as, in the current examples. We use the term polynym (literally, ‘many-word’) to mean an array of subordinate elements that defines a superordinate axiom. Making Sense of Concepts
  85. 85. 85 polynym: a theoretical construct that is best described using an array of subordinate terms id ego superego Psyche (Freud) P=3 A=psychology topic (source) P=denominator A=area/discipline subordinates } } Introducing Making Sense of Concepts
  86. 86. 86 id ego superego Psyche (Freud) P=3 A=psychology topic (source) P=denominator A=area/discipline subordinates } } Superordinate The theoretical construct = {Freud, Psyche} Subordinates The theory’s divisions = {id, ego, superego} Making Sense of Concepts
  87. 87. 87 id ego superego Psyche (Freud) P=3 A=psychology topic (source) P=denominator A=area/discipline subordinates } } Numerator The theory topic = {psyche} Denominator The number of subordinates = {3} Making Sense of Concepts
  88. 88. 88 Goal • collect synsets of theory subordinates • build a network of interdisciplinary theories • enable development by web community Uses • machine learning • mapping between disciplines • story understanding • knowledge base inferencing • interdisciplinary research • language translation id ego superego earth metal wood fire water Psyche, Personality (Freud) P=3 A=psychology chi (Wu Xing) P=5 A=philosophy reasoning P=2 A=cog-sci inductive deductive innate instinct impulse reflex want desire me self rational reason resolve decide ideal moral conscience self-reflection restraint disapproval synsets topic (source) P=denominator A=area/discipline subordinates } } } { { Making Sense of Concepts
  89. 89. 89 Synonym sets (synsets) are essential for story understanding and language translation. However, meaning can change in context of a specific theory… ≠ ego personality (Freud) P=3 A=psychology self rational reason resolve decide ego English (WordNet) conceit narcissism pride vanity self-esteem Like a thesaurus, synonym sets in a lexical database like WordNet[#] are highly aligned in meaning. In the context of a superordinate construct, synonym sets may be more abstract. Creating super/subordinate synonym sets is a unique way to define and compare axioms. Making Sense of Concepts
  90. 90. 90 A network of interdisciplinary theories and accompanying synsets can be built communally. Specialists in different fields collect and compare ideas in one location. Expert 1 Expert 2 personality (Freud) P=3 A=psychology energy (chakra) P=7 A=philosophy mood (Ekman) P=6 A=psychology intelligence (Gardner) P=7 A=psychology chi (Wu Xing) P=5 A=philosophy truth (Buddha) P=4 A=philosophy Making Sense of Concepts
  91. 91. 91 Related theories can be retrieved together, even if originating from different domains. theology metaphysics man (Shultze) P=3 A=theology man (Hsing) P=5 A=metaphysics Search: humanities natural spritual carnal common worthy superior called sage Making Sense of Concepts
  92. 92. Commonsense Knowledge Acquisition & Ontology The Quadranym Sensibility Model (Q): The Q proposal is a method to research and represent word level concepts, commonsense knowledge and the intersects that dispense a human-like sensibility. It’s easier for computers to perform accurate quantum calculations than to derive a clear moral message from a simple children’s story. 92 Making Sense of Concepts
  93. 93. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Bruner, J. (1984) Actual minds possible world, MIT Press. 2. Jon Barwise and John Perry, Situations and Attitudes, 1983. MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-02189-7 3. Chalmers, D. J. (2010) The Character of Consciousness, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Chalmers, D. J. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Chemero, A., (2009) Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 6. Clark, A., Chalmers, D. J. (1998), reprint, (2010) The Extended Mind. MIT Press. 1. Clark A. (2015) Surfing Uncertainty, Oxford University Press. 1. Dahlgren, K. (1988) Naïve Semantics For Natural Language Understanding, Springer US, copy right holder: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1. Dreyfus, H.L. (ed.) (1982) Husserl, Intentionality and Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2. Fillmore, C. (1968) "Frame semantics”, (1982) In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co., 3. Fodor, J. A. (1978) “Propositional Attitudes” in RePresentations: (1984) Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science, J.A. Fodor, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1981. 4. Frege, G. (1891) Function and Concept, in Jenaische Gesellschaft für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, 5. Frege, G. (1892) On Sense and Reference, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 6. Frege, G. (1892) Concept and Object, in Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie XVI 7. Fries, P. (2005). "A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence". 1. Gallagher S. (2005 )How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press. 2. Gibson, J.J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 3. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Boston: Hughton Mifflin. 1. Gibson, J.J. (1972). A Theory of Direct Visual Perception. In J. Royce, W. Rozenboom (Eds.). The Psychology of Knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach. 2. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds.). 3. Heidegger M. (1927) Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. 4. Hoff B. (1982) The Tao of Pooh. Dutton 5. Husserl, E. (1900/1970) Logical Investigations, (Engl. Transl. by Findlay, J.N.), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 6. Husserl, E. (1913) Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. 7. Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan. 8. Kahneman D. Tversky A.(2000). Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge University Press. 9. Kripke S. (1972) Semantics of natural language, Reidel Publishing Company. 10. Lakeoff G., Johnson M, (1980) Metaphores we live by, University of Chicago Press. 11. Lenat, D. (2001) Hal's Legacy, 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality. Common Sense and the Mind of HAL". Cycorp, Inc. 12. Lenat, D. and Guha R. V. (1990). Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Addison-Wesley. 13. Matuszek C. (2005) "Searching for Common Sense: Populating Cyc from the Web". Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 14. Merleau-Ponty M. (1945) Phenomenology of Perception, first published, Editions Gallimard, Paris. 15. Miller G. A., Beckwith R, Fellbaum C. D., Gross D., Miller K. (1990). WordNet: An online lexical database. Int. J. Lexicograph 16. Minsky, M. (1986) The Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster. 17. Minsky, M. (2006). The Emotion Machine. Simon & Schuster. 18. Myin E. (2013) Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content MIT Press. 1. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill. 2. Prinz, J. (2012) The Conscience Brain, Oxford University Press. 3. Rosch, E. (1975) “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories", Journal of Experimental Psychology. 4. Searle, J. (1983) Intentionality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Stamenov, N.I., and Gallese, V. (2002) Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language. John Benjamins Publishing Co. 1. Singh, P. (2002) The Open Mind Common Sense Project, MIT Medi a Lab January 1, 2002: KurzweilAI.net. 2. Velleman, J. D. 1989. Practical Reflection . Princeton: Princeton University Press. "The Guise of the Good” In Velleman 2000. 3. Whitehead, A. N. (1929), Process and Reality, New York: Macmillan. 4. Whitehead, A. N. (1933) Adventures of Ideas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; New York: Macmillan. 5. Williams, R.R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. SUNY Press. 1. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations , G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell. 2. Wittgenstein, L. (1921) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C. K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 3. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind 93 Making Sense of Concepts Important CS acquisition projects (The Cyc project: ‘Common Sense knowledge Base’ (Lenat, Guha, 1990)) (Open Mind Common Sense (Singh, P. 2002)) Reference Page Not Complete
  94. 94. Dane Scalise – Researcher Scotty Vercoe – MIT Media Lab Making Sense of Concepts The Quadranym Sensibility Model (EROS) A Look at the Ordinariness of the Mythic Sense Identify the box that you seek to think out of;-) 94 Dedicated to coders and thinkers Buildintuit.com

×