On 9/25/2022 12:45 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> 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.

A knowledge ontology is the foundation for Tarski's meta-language, yet
he did not know this at the time.

> (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?
>

I figured this one out in 15 minutes when I first heard of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles#:~:text=The%20identity%20of%20indiscernibles%20is,by%20y%20and%20vice%20versa.

If two objects have entirely identical properties** then it is
one-and-the-same single object.

**Including point in time (if applicable) and position in space (if
applicable)

>> 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.
>

As I said and you ignored it includes a quote of Wittgenstein's rebuttal
of Gödel on page 6.

> 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.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer