RE: ONT Inquiry Driven Learning Environments

very nicely put.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:02 PM
To: Jon Awbrey
Cc: Inquiry; Ontology
Subject: Re: ONT Inquiry Driven Learning Environments



Jon Awbrey wrote:
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> IDLE.  Note 1
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> | Author:   Jon Awbrey
> | Version:  Draft 4.00
> | Created:  10 Sep 1993
> | Revised:  20 Oct 2003
>
> Extensions Of Mind:  Essays And Reports On Intelligent Systems
>
> 1.  Components of Intelligence
>
> 1.1.  Abstract of Argument
>
> A threefold scheme is proposed for organizing the various
> functions of intelligence.  Three generic categories are
> outlined that cut across multiple levels of reasoning and
> representation and that serve to classify in broad terms
> a multitude of more specialized components.  These three
> modalities are intended to be regarded as components of
> intelligence more in the mathematical sense of the word,
> that is, as generative dimensions of variation, and not
> of necessity in the mereological sense of "components",
> that is, spatially discrete and localized parts.
>
> These abstract components or schematic categories may be labelled
> as "deductive", "inductive", and "abductive", when considered as
> types of reasoning, or as "syntactic", "semantic", and "pragmatic",
> when treated as aspects of representation.
[...]

You threw me for a bit of a loop. Is there a direct corollary
relationship between the two triples of abstract components or
schematic categories, and perhaps in Peirce's principles, as in:

      deductive   <------->   syntactic   <------->   Firstness
      inductive   <------->   semantic    <------->   Secondness
      abductive   <------->   pragmatic   <------->   Thirdness

Or am I jumping the gun and the answer to this coming up?

 > [...] It is a working hypothesis
 > of the philosophy that I am taking up here that these three dimensions
 > are irreducible and exhaustive, at least when they are taken at their
 > own proper level of approximation, but the character of their relative
 > independence as dimensions does not seem to involve that of interacting
 > trivially with each other.  In fact, the evidence of my own experience
 > with implementing some fraction of their capabilities leads me to the
 > following provisional conclusion:  In order to build a live, real-time
 > capacity for "understanding" it will be necessary to integrate all three
 > of these dimensions of intelligence so thoroughly about a common family
 > of data structures that each of the distinct aspects will operate more
 > like an alternate perspective on the same facts than as a separately
 > embodied module of code.  Along the way, partly in support of this
 > deliberately short list of functionalities, a particular slant
 > on the aims of AI will be advanced.

This was what I was referring to in my response to Richard Cooper

    http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11374.html

in stating that knowledge systems cannot be built without such a
core. I like the idea that all three are essentially facets of the
same essential facts, inseparable, a holism. So I'm eager to see this
one fleshed out.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   Monkeys use thoughts to control robotic arm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/13/MN2018.DTL
   Bush uses media expertly to push apocalyptic view
     http://truthout.org/docs_03/091403J.shtml