The Ontology Summit, sponsored by Ontolog Forum, will present two talks at noon (EST) on Feb 28. Gary Marcus will speak for 30 min., I'll speak for 30 min, and there will be 30 min. for discussion. See below for details. I apologize for being so late, but it will be posted on YouTube by Friday.
I also attached the first 5 slides from my talk because slide 2 is a cartoon from 1900, which predicted the AI technology of 2000 in a joking kind of way. I then relate that to the ongoing work on ChatGPT and related systems.
And by the way, the link at the bottom of page 2 goes to a website with more cartoons from 1899 to 1910 that make other predictions about the year 2000. Note the sign near the ceiling of this one, which says "en l'an 2000" -- that's the only French on most of them.
John
----------------------------------------
From: "Ken Baclawski" <kenbaclawski(a)gmail.com>
Sent: 2/27/24 4:07 PM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolog-forum(a)googlegroups.com>, ontology-summit(a)googlegroups.com
Subject: [Ontology Summit] Ontology Summit 2024
This is the final reminder that the next session of the Ontology Summit 2024 will be on Wednesday 28 February 2024 at Noon US/Canada Eastern Time on Zoom https://bit.ly/48lM0Ik
The next session will feature Gary Marcus and John Sowa
Please note that because there are two speakers, the session will last 1.5 hours.
The website for the Ontology Summit 2024 is available at https://bit.ly/3RDw4LD
The session webpage is at https://bit.ly/3TahUli
Ken Baclawski
Chair, Ontolog Board of Trustees
/* Apologies if you received multiple copies of this CFP./
/* Please kindly forward to those who may be interested./
*Call for Workshops and Tutorials*
*1st International Joint Conference on Conceptual Knowledge Structures*
*Cádiz (Spain) - September**, 9th-13th, 2024 *
*https://*
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/iwann.uma.es/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tl9MNQGOCnm…>*concepts2024.uca.es*
<https://concepts2024.uca.es/>*/*
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/iwann.uma.es/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tl9MNQGOCnm…>
The 1st International Joint Conference on Conceptual
Knowledge Structures (CONCEPTS) is a merger of the three conferences
CLA, ICCS, and ICFCA, which have been essential venues for researchers
and practitioners working on theoretical and applied aspects of
formal concept analysis and representation of conceptual knowledge, as
well as closely related areas, such as data mining, information
retrieval, knowledge management and discovery.
This new conference aims to continue the tradition and standards
of previous conferences and become a key annual meeting to take along
all members of the three communities of CLA, ICCS, and ICFCA and to
keep abreast of the advances and new challenges in the field.
Main topics include but are not limited to:
- Formal concept analysis: concept lattices, implications,
algorithms and computational complexity
- Conceptual graphs, graph-based models for human reasoning
- Knowledge spaces and learning spaces
- Ontologies, semantic web, knowledge graphs
- Conceptual structures in natural language processing and linguistics
- Conceptual knowledge acquisition and management
- Conceptual knowledge discovery, data analysis, and visualization
- Probabilistic approaches to conceptual knowledge representation and
knowledge discovery
- Approximation techniques in application to conceptual structures
- Bridging conceptual structures to information sciences, artificial
intelligence, data mining, machine learning, information retrieval,
database theory, software engineering, and other areas of computer science
- Understanding real-world data and modeling real-world phenomena with
conceptual structures.
*_Workshops and Tutorials_*
We cordially invite you to submit proposals for both*workshops and
tutorial* in current and emerging research lines in (or related to) the
main topics of CONCEPTS (https://concepts2024.uca.es/cfp/). The
workshops and tutorials provide an opportunity to discuss novel topics
in an interactive atmosphere. They can concentrate in-depth on research
topics, but can also be devoted to application issues. Proposals will be
submitted by email to concepts2024(a)uca.es.
Workshops and tutorials will be scheduled on September 9-10, 2024.
*_Submissions _*
Workshops and tutorials proposal: February 28, 2024.
Notification of acceptance workshops and tutorials: March 4, 2024.
__
*_General and Conference Chair_**__*
Jesús Medina, University of Cádiz, Spain
*_Program Chairs_*
Inma P. Cabrera, University of Málaga, Spain
Sébastien Ferré, University of Rennes, France
Sergei Obiedkov, TU Dresden, Germany
*_Workshops and Tutorials chair_*
Eloísa Ramírez Poussa, University of Cádiz, Spain
*_Executive Board_*
Jaume Baixeries, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain
Radim Belohlavek, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic
Tanya Braun, University of Münster, Germany
Madalina Croitoru, University of Montpellier, France
Sébastien Ferré, University of Rennes, France
Sergei Kuznetsov, HSE University, Moscow, Russia
Rokia Missaoui, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada
Amedeo Napoli, LORIA, Nancy, France
Sergei Obiedkov, TU Dresden, Germany
Manuel Ojeda-Aciego, University of Malaga, Spain
Uta Priss, Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences, Wolfenbüttel, Germany
Gerd Stumme, University of Kassel, Germany
You can find extended information on CONCEPTS24 web page:
https://concepts2024.uca.es/
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/iwann.uma.es/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tl9MNQGOCnm…> or
contact us at concepts2024(a)uca.es.
We look forward to meeting you in Cádiz. Please, feel free to contact us
for any further information.
Also, submissions for papers for the journal track (deadline on March 6)
and the regular track (deadline on March 25) are still open. For more
information, see the CONCEPTS website:
https://concepts2024.uca.es/submissions/
Sincerely yours,
*Eloísa Ramírez Poussa*
*CONCEPTS 2024 Workshops and Tutorials chair.*
Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • Discussion 12
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/24/sign-relations-triadic-relations-…
Re: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/18/sign-relations-triadic-relations-…
All,
A note from a longtime correspondent points out a search of the
available texts turns up no use of the plural form “semiotics”
by Peirce and just one place where he uses the plural form
“Semeiotics”. That prompts me to make the following excuse
for my use or abuse of Peirce's terms, as the case may be.
Peirce has always been one of my chief resources in the quest
to understand how logic and math and science work. There is
much to be gained by getting his distinctive ideas across to
active practitioners in those fields. In doing that I find
it better to tweak the words a bit, if that's what it takes
to preserve the idea, than to hallow the words at the risk
of losing the idea.
As far as semiotics by any name goes, what seems to work best
without too much clanging in modern ears is parsing “semiotics”
in line with words like “mathematics” and “cybernetics”, plus
we can now use the singular form as the adjective “semiotic”.
Regards,
Jon
cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/lJkvgx
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111052869574911676
Jon, List
I am now busy preparing slides for a Zoom talk on Feb 28, sponsored by Ontolog Forum. (I'll forward a copy of the announcement to P-List, if anyone is interested.) But first, I'll respond to some of your doubts.
JFS> The entire letter L376 is about Delta graphs and applications of Delta graphs.
JAS> This conjecture is quite a leap, considering that--as you acknowledged--Peirce mentions Delta exactly once in that entire 19-page letter, which he left unfinished...
The primary subject of L376 is Delta graphs. That is the only interpretation that unifies every part. In the following excerpt from L376, the word 'here' refers to the content of L376. For emphasis, certain passages in this excerpt are printed in bold.
"This syntax, which I have hitherto called the "system of Existential Graphs" . . . An account of slightly further development of it was given in the Monist of Oct. 1906. In this I made an attempt to make the syntax cover Modals; but it has not satisfied me. . . the description fills 55 pages, and defines over a hundred technical terms applying to it. The necessity for these was chiefly due to the lines called "cuts" which simply appear in the present description as the boundaries of shadings, or shaded parts of the sheet. The better exposition of 1903 divided the system into three parts, distinguished as the Alpha, the Beta, and the Gamma, parts; a division I shall here adhere to, although I shall now have to add a Delta part in order to deal with modals. A cross division of the description which here, as in that of 1903, is given precedence over the other is into the Conventions, the Rules, and the working of the System."
Note that Peirce had made various attempts to go beyond the 1903 version of modals, but he was not satisfied with them. Since he never used the 1903 version of modals, except for a few pages of the Logic Notebook, there is strong evidence that he was looking for a replacement. When he mentioned the division into Alpha, Beta, and Gamma, he did not say what each part included. He had that same division with his algebra of 1885, in which the third part was second-order predicate calculus (quantifiers that range over relations). Since he planned to keep that division, but with a new version of modals, it seems unlikely that he would have kept a version of modals that he had never used for any purpose in the previous eight years.
In the remainder of L376, note the paragraphs that begin with the phrases "The Conventions." and "the Phemic Sheet." The paragraphs that follow describe a version of logic that is different from any that Peirce had previously specified. Can you suggest any reason why he might be specifying a logic other than Delta graphs?
Note that he also mentions probabilities. That suggests another important innovation: The use of multiple "papers" for specifying both possible and probable parts of the phemic sheet. That would be a unification that goes beyond most logics of the 21st C. In fact, it would make a valuable contribution to the latest R & D in artificial intelligence. That is a topic I mentioned in Section 7 of my recent article on phaneroscopy, and it would put Peirce into the forefront of ongoing issues in AI. See the copy of Section 7 I sent to both Peirce and CG lists.
The 2006 version of logic that I have in mind is called IKL, which could be adapted to the specifications Peirce mentioned in R514, L231, and R376. Since I don't have time to pare down and discuss the references, I'll cite all of them.
The first version, which suggests, but doesn't specify a modal logic, is from a conference in Denmark in 2002, and published in a book in 2003: Laws, Facts, and Contexts: Foundations for Multimodal Reasoning, https://jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm . At the bottom of the text is a photograph of the participants. Hintikka and I are in the center, both wearing rain coats. We had a long conversation during the conference, and that influenced the directions I took in the published version and in the following articles.
In that article, I discuss, among other issues, Peirce's logic of 1906 with heraldic tinctures. But the complexity of the tinctures is irrelevant. I later moved to a much simpler version of modal logic that is similar to the logic of L376. But note Figure 1 of this article, which cites a graph from RLT (1898). Figure 1 is exactly equivalent to the "papers" in R514 and L376. That operator, when added to the first-order EGs of 1911, is sufficient for a modal logic that would be similar to or perhaps identical to what Peirce is writing about Delta graphs.
Next, see an article published in 2006, but written in 2005: Worlds, Models, and Descriptions, https://jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf . I wrote this article while I was collaborating on the development of the IKL logic, which was also published in 2006. For a list of references to IKL and the IKRIS project that sponsored the development of IKL, see https://jfsowa.com/ikl .
Then. look at Five Questions on Epistemic Logic, https://jfsowa.com/pubs/5qelogic.pdf . That article, which was published in 2010, discusses how a logic such as IKL or Peirce's delta graphs could represent various issues in modal logic with an emphasis on epistemic logic -- that is also a consideration for my recent article about phaneroscopy.
There is much more that could be said, and I plan to write it in the article on Delta graphs. And by the way, I wonder how you would explain the three questions I asked: Why did Juliette wash and scrub the floor in Deceber? Why were there papers on the floor? Why did Peirce slip on them in a very complex way?
John
----------------------------------------
From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschmidt(a)gmail.com>
Sent: 2/21/24 1:25 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l(a)list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in Logic)
John, List:
JFS: The entire letter L376 is about Delta graphs and applications of Delta graphs.
This conjecture is quite a leap, considering that--as you acknowledged--Peirce mentions Delta exactly once in that entire 19-page letter, which he left unfinished unless additional pages somehow disappeared from the manuscript folder at Harvard's Houghton Library decades ago. Again, here is that lone sentence.
CSP: The better exposition of 1903 divided the system into three parts, distinguished as the Alpha, the Beta, and the Gamma, parts; a division I shall here adhere to, although I shall now have to add a Delta part in order to deal with modals.
In the remaining text that we currently have, Peirce never gets around to discussing any of the individual parts of EGs and their differences, despite stating plainly that he was going to maintain them as "the better exposition" of the system as a whole. He also says nothing whatsoever about dealing with modals, which is his only stated purpose for adding a Delta part to the other three.
JFS: As Peirce wrote, the phemic sheet of a Delta graph contains multiple "papers", each of which represents one possibility specified by "postulates" that govern the remaining content of the sheet.
That is not what Peirce wrote in his letter to Risteen. Again, here is the exact quotation.
CSP: I provide my system with a phemic sheet, which is a surface upon which the utterer and interpreter will, by force of a voluntary and actually contracted habit, recognize that whatever is scribed upon it and is interpretable as an assertion is to be recognized as an assertion, although it may refer to a mere idea as its subject. If “snows” is scribed upon the Phemic Sheet, it asserts that in the universe to which a special understanding between utterer and interpreter has made the special part of the phemic sheet on which it is scribed to relate, it sometime does snow. For they two may conceive that the “phemic sheet” embraces many papers, so that one part of it is before the common attention at one time and another part at another, and that actual conventions between them equivalent to scribed graphs make some of those pieces relate to one subject and part to another.
Again, there is no mention here of Delta, nor of modals. In fact, there is no mention here of any of the different parts of EGs, because Peirce is describing the phemic sheet as employed in every part. He also does not say that the different "papers" correspond to different possibilities, he says that they correspond to different subjects--different universes of discourse--to which the utterer and interpreter together pay attention at different times. So I ask again, how exactly would the use of multiple "papers" and/or the "red pencil" operation of R 514 facilitate implementing formal systems of modal logic with EGs? Which specific one, "invented in 2006," do you have in mind?
JFS: Meanwhile, there are some questions to ponder:
Any answers to such questions about the details of Peirce's unfortunate accident are pure speculation. It seems to me that if it had happened while he was "laying out a diagram of papers" for a new version of EGs, then he likely would have said so somewhere.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 9:18 PM John F Sowa <sowa(a)bestweb.net> wrote:
Jon,
The entire letter L376 is about Delta graphs and applications of Delta graphs. Since Peirce began the letter to Risteen shortly after his visit, he was assuming that Risteen knew a great deal about the material they had discussed. Therefore, he plunged into examples without much of an intro.
As Peirce wrote, the phemic sheet of a Delta graph contains multiple "papers", each of which represents one possibility specified by "postulates" that govern the remaining content of the sheet. There are many ways of partitioning a sheet of paper to distinguish the postulates from the content they govern. The excerpt from R514 is one method, and it happens to fill an entire sheet of paper. He may have thought of some other notation for partitioning the paper, but the logical result would be equivalent.
There is much more to say, and I'll send the full preview later this week.
Meanwhile, there are some questions to ponder: Why did Juliette scrub and polish the floor in December? Spring cleaning is rarely done in December. Why was there some paper on the floor? Why did Peirce slip n it? Didn't he see it? Why was his accident so serious? If he had been walking in a straight line, he might have fallen on his rear. That might have been painful, but it wouldn't cause a serious injury that took 6 months to heal. Such a serious accident might have occurred if Peirce had been walking fast while turning or twisting. But why would he be doing that?
Possible answer: Charles had asked Juliette to wash the floor because he wanted to build a diagram with multiple papers. He was laying out a diagram of papers with a large example of what he was writing about. As he turned to lay our another layer, he turned and slipped.
John
Tone Token Type • Discussion 1
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/17/tone-token-type-discussion-1/
All,
Daniel Everett shared an interesting remark about
Peirce's Tone-Token-Type distinctions on Facebook.
Re: FB | Daniel Everett
•
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02owMh25tTQnyznx7cgc…
DE:
❝People who believe that Peirce's terms firstness, secondness,
and thirdness are complicated might have overlooked the fact
that they almost certainly already use two of the three terms
via Peirce's other terms type (thirdness) and token (secondness).
What is missing is only Peirce's other term tone, which refers
to firstness.
❝These distinctions are crucial. Take linguistic fieldwork.
When the fieldworker first hears something or sees something
but has no idea about it other than it is “strange” or unexpected,
that is a tone/firstness. When the linguist proposes the phones
of a language, the list are tokens/secondnesses. When the linguist
proposes phonemes, those are types/thirdnesses. (And underlying form
would be a thirdness/type and the surface form a secondness/token.)❞
I added the following remarks.
The way Peirce shades the matter of signs along the lines of
a Tone‑Token‑Type spectrum is a topic of recurring discussion.
There's a selection of Peirce quotes and a few comments from me
on the following page.
Tone, Token, Type
• https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Tone,_Token,_Type
Re: C.S. Peirce • Note 1
• https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Tone,_Token,_Type#Note_1
CSP:
❝For a “possible” Sign I have no better designation than a Tone,
though I am considering replacing this by “Mark”.❞
I've seen some readers be confused by Peirce's sometime alternative of
Mark for Tone, thinking he meant something like a scratch‑mark on paper,
but he is using Mark in the sense of Character(istic), Distinctive Feature,
or Quality. I don’t know whether he had it in mind but that particular use
was also common among 19th Century mathematicians in the early years of the
subject known as the Representation Theory of Groups.
Regards,
Jon
cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/V9q1KN
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111949053496497411
