On 9/25/2022 9:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/25/2022 1:19 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST
>> FAILED>
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
>>> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
>>
>> How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
>> understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by the
>> total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to judge
>> most of the things you pontificate about.
>>
>> Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
>>
> That is a verbatim quote of Kurt Gödel:
Why did he call it "simple types" rather than "types"? That was because
he was writing about a baby step, not a complete Platonic epistemology.
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
>>> individuals,
>>> properties of individuals,
>>> relations between individuals,
>>> properties of such relations, etc.
>>> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears
>>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of
>>> types fitting together.
>>>
>>> This is a knowledge ontology.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>
>> Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that Ontology
>> has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so far) in ways
>> that we know how to express it and 2) overlap with epistemology in an
>> attempt to get a handle on what knowledge is. In other words, things
>> like hierarchical organizations to express relationships are very
>> nice. As far as they go, that is.
>>
>
> 800 labor years were invested in the Cyc project's knowledge ontology.
Cyc is doing good work trying to collect the part of what we know, where
a simple-enough-to-use abstraction is enough. It's very impressive even
though it's not an advance in philosophy.
>> A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part of
>> his support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both
>> natural and artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The
>> reason is that they quickly die of their own weight and inefficiencies
>> if they wear a hierarchical straight jacket.
>>
>
> The natural preexisting order of knowledge is an inheritance hierarchy.
No it isn't. Knowledge is in flux. We have no idea about universal
truths; hell, we don't even know if there is a universe or this is a
logical simulation. Then there are all those multi universe theories
where each component has its own physics. Since we have no way to
determine the truth or falsity of such claims, we have no preexisting
order of things let alone an order of things.
>> When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
>> ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
>> problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For trivial
>> insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
>>
>> 1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that such
>> words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's ability to
>> realize what is beneath the surface shows the representation is
>> inadequate.
>>
>
> The Cyc project uses GUIDs for each unique sense meaning.
That is nice but it is not the type of linguistic knowledge that we
carry in our head. Cyc neither understands puns or makes them up. Cyc
does not laugh.
>> 2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he left
>> (in the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of creature
>> was about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at the time the
>> state had close to zero snow plows but by chance I learned that
>> hierarchical categories didn't quite do it.
>>
>> 3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also
>> belongs to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to
>> countless parent classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best) an
>> acyclic graph. The
>
> Same thing.
Wrong again. By the way, Lenat's dissertation id more philosophically
interesting than the Cyc work though the latter represents orders of
magnitude more work.
>> usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some classes
>> as properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the choices as to
>> what constitutes classes and what are properties is quite ad hoc and
>> gives the lie to the venture.
>>
>
>> 4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
>> terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
>> subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the germs
>> were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current hierarchy
>> of life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia was in!!!! The
>> question has been settled in modern times by sequencing its DNA. For
>> the curious, it's a bacteria. So hierarchies will change over time.
>> This bullet demonstrates the change in our knowledge. Grasshopper, for
>> some extra credit find some examples where the classification changes
>> because the members of the class evolve.
4b. I should have added this example. "Staff disease" is a term meaning,
approximately, whatever is going around in this hospital. As new
patients are admitted, the mix of infections changes. What is
interesting here is that probabilistic diagnoses and explanations have
great difficulties for a very interesting reason: the "priories" are
time dependent! Yet there is vocabulary to communicate about the concept
even though such conversations carried thru time can change truth values
back and forth with hind sight and foresight as well as advances in
medical knowledge.
>> For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a butterfly's
>> development. Also explain what it means when the official codification
>> of all eternal knowledge changes day by day and year by year. Is
>> knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible structure that pulses and
>> changes in various ways?
>>
>> Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices (and
>> my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky comments rather
>> than address what has been said, 3) edit out all those things you
>> don't understand, or 4) show some code and (incorrect) stuff in pseudo
>> math notation and try to appear above the level of grasshopper.
>>
>> We shall see!
>
> A knowledge ontology is the basic structure required to make a human
> mind using software. Before we can do this effectively we must first get
> a much better handle on the notion of truth itself. Tarski "proved" that
> it is impossible to formalize the notion of truth on the basis that he
> could not prove that the liar paradox is true. He never noticed that the
> liar paradox is not a truth bearer.
Most of the paragraphs directly above and below are incoherent. Mixing
ontology discussions with Tarski and truth is like discussing pigs and
the OED together. (Pick your sense of pig.) Then you throw Godel and
Wittgenstein in the mix and get gibberish. The most profound insight
attributed to Wittgenstein was, in paraphrase, "Even if two objects
share ever property in our knowledge, we cannot conclude that the
objects are the same." Now what does that do to your religious
convictions about ontology and truth?
> These same sort of issues arise with Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
> Wittgenstein summed it up the same way that I did before ever reading
> Wittgenstein: "This sentence cannot be proved" is simply not a truth
> bearer.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
> Wittgenstein's refutation of Gödel's incompleteness is on page 6.
Why would I read something you wrote that hasn't been peer reviewed and
published? I'm sure that it sums up your misunderstandings and mistakes
made over the last several decades.
New Insight: I was just about to send this message when I suddenly
realized: Strict non-changing hierarchies are the perfect knowledge
representation for you since you seem incapable of learning any thing
new or different. Particularly different. Your head is totally resistant
to new insights and information just like the representations you promote.
--
Jeff Barnett