- CG - lists.cs.uni-kassel.de

by John F Sowa

Dima, Yes, they were in the same field as George Miller (psychology). But they also hung out with enough neuroscientists that some of the blood and guts rubbed off on them. Right now, the major research on the topic depends on neuroscience. That is one among many reasons why I prefer to use the term 'Cognitive Science'. The subject is so complex that collaboration among the different fields is essential. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Dima, Alden A. (Fed)' via ontolog-forum" <ontolog-forum(a)googlegroups.com> Hi John, A certain large language model tells me that Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch were psychologists and not neuroscientists. Alden

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 0

The central executive

by John F Sowa

Doug, The central executive controls all the processes that are controllable by the human ego. But the term 'executive' should be considered the equivalent of what the chief executive officer (CEO) of a business does in managing a corporation. There are intermediaries at various points. Baddeley & Hitch wrote their initial article in 1974. They wrote that in response to George Miller's "Magic Number 7, plus or minus 2." They realized that there was much more to short-term memory than just words and phonemes. They called Miller's storage "the phonological loop" and they added a visuo-spatial scratchpad for short-term imagery and feelings. And they continued to revise and extend their hypotheses for another 20 or 30 years. Other neuroscientists, who are specialists in different aspects, have been working on related issues. The idea is an important one that the Generative AI gang has not yet latched onto. But some AI people are starting to take notice, and I believe that they are on the right track. In summary, there is more to come. See the references I cited, and do whatever googling and searching you like. John ---------------------------------------- From: "doug foxvog" <doug(a)foxvog.org> John, Baddeley & Hitch's "central executive" (CE) is described as an attentional controlling system. I have just briefly glanced at it, but it seems that the point is coordinating and accessing memory through an episodic buffer, phonological loop, and visio-spatial "sketchpad". The hypothesized CE deals with information, language, memory, imagery, & spatial awareness. That covers a lot, and i assume it would also cover conscious actions and processes. But i don't see it covering neurohormone production or things like heartrate. Lower level processes like basal signaling between neurons would have no need of a central executive, as they are just basal processes. It's the word "all" in "all processes" that indicates to me that the claim is excessive. FWIW, i note that sharks also have brains -- as do "higher" orders of invertebrates. -- doug f > On Wed, April 10, 2024 18:38, John F Sowa wrote: > Doug, > > The central executive was proposed by the neuroscientists Baddeley & > Hitch, not by AI researchers. There is nothing "machine-like" in the > idea, by itself. Without something like it, there is no way to explain > how a huge tangle of neurons could act together and coordinate their > efforts to support a common effort. > > It reminds me of a neighboring town (to my residence in Croton on Hudson, > NY), which was doing some major developments without hiring a general > contractor. They thought that their local town employees could schedule > all the processes. It turned out to be a total disaster. All the > subcontractors did their tasks in a random order, each one interfering > with some of the others, and causing a major mess. There were lawsuits > back and forth, and the town management was found guilty and had losses > that were many times greater than the cost of hiring a general contractor. > > It is certainly true that there is a huge amount of computation going on > in the brain that is below conscious awareness. Most of that is done by > the cerebellum (little brain), which is physically much smaller than the > cerebral cortex. But it contains over four times the number of neurons. > In effect, the cerebellum behaves like a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) > which is a superfast, highly specialized processor for all the perception > and action that takes place without conscious awareness. > > For example, when you're walking down the street talking on your cell > phone, the cerebellum is monitoring your vision, muscles, and strides -- > until you step off the curb and get run over by a bus. That's why you need > a central controller to monitor and coordinate all the processes. > > Sharks and dolphins are about the same size and they eat the same kind of > prey. Sharks have a huge cerebellum and a small lump for a cerebellum. > Dolphins have a huge cerebral cortex and a huge cerebellum. They are as > agile as sharks, but they can plan, communicate, and coordinate their > activities. When the food is plentiful, they can both eat their fill. > But when it's scarce, the dolphins are much more successful. > > Please look at the citations in my previous note and the attached > Section7.pdf. The cycle of abduction, induction, testing, and induction > depends on a central executive that is responsible for planning, > coordinating, and integrating those steps of conscious feeling, thinking, > reasoning, and acting. With a central executive, an AI system would be > more intelligent. But much, much more R & D would be required before > anything could be called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). That's > why I have very little faith in anything called AGI. > > John > > ---------------------------------------- > From: "doug foxvog" <doug(a)foxvog.org> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The central executive > > On Wed, April 10, 2024 14:07, John F Sowa wrote: >> In today's ZOOM meeting, I objected to the term 'neuro-symbolic hybrid' >> of >> artificial neural networks (ANNs) with symbols. Hybrids simply relate >> two >> (sometimes more) distinctly different things. But all the processes in >> the mind and brain are integrated, and they all operate continuously in >> different parts of the brain, which are all monitored and controlled by >> a >> central executive. ... > > This seems to me to be modeling the body as a machine and not an accurate > description. > > There are a wide variety of processes in the mind and brain -- many > processes in the brain occur independently without being integrated either > with each other or with the mind. I am excluding standard cellular level > processes that go on in every cell and the processes of the circulatory > system in the brain. Every neuron regularly chemically interacts with > adjacent neurons & passes electrical signals along its surface. > > As far as i understand, much that goes on in the brain we are unaware of, > neurohormone production, for example. Sensory input processing does not > seem to be integrated with a number of other processes. I have seen no > evidence of a central executive in the brain that monitors and controls > all the other processes. I'm not sure how such a central executive could > have evolved. > > -- > All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. > For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or > unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ontolog-forum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/4fb66bcbfa3545089754dd611e2…. > -- All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/ac888bfe4447f5a5e57d1cfd17c….

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 0

The central executive

by John F Sowa

Doug, The central executive was proposed by the neuroscientists Baddeley & Hitch, not by AI researchers. There is nothing "machine-like" in the idea, by itself. Without something like it, there is no way to explain how a huge tangle of neurons could act together and coordinate their efforts to support a common effort. It reminds me of a neighboring town (to my residence in Croton on Hudson, NY), which was doing some major developments without hiring a general contractor. They thought that their local town employees could schedule all the processes. It turned out to be a total disaster. All the subcontractors did their tasks in a random order, each one interfering with some of the others, and causing a major mess. There were lawsuits back and forth, and the town management was found guilty and had losses that were many times greater than the cost of hiring a general contractor. It is certainly true that there is a huge amount of computation going on in the brain that is below conscious awareness. Most of that is done by the cerebellum (little brain), which is physically much smaller than the cerebral cortex. But it contains over four times the number of neurons. In effect, the cerebellum behaves like a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) which is a superfast, highly specialized processor for all the perception and action that takes place without conscious awareness. For example, when you're walking down the street talking on your cell phone, the cerebellum is monitoring your vision, muscles, and strides -- until you step off the curb and get run over by a bus. That's why you need a central controller to monitor and coordinate all the processes. Sharks and dolphins are about the same size and they eat the same kind of prey. Sharks have a huge cerebellum and a small lump for a cerebellum. Dolphins have a huge cerebral cortex and a huge cerebellum. They are as agile as sharks, but they can plan, communicate, and coordinate their activities. When the food is plentiful, they can both eat their fill. But when it's scarce, the dolphins are much more successful. Please look at the citations in my previous note and the attached Section7.pdf. The cycle of abduction, induction, testing, and induction depends on a central executive that is responsible for planning, coordinating, and integrating those steps of conscious feeling, thinking, reasoning, and acting. With a central executive, an AI system would be more intelligent. But much, much more R & D would be required before anything could be called "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). That's why I have very little faith in anything called AGI. John ---------------------------------------- From: "doug foxvog" <doug(a)foxvog.org> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The central executive On Wed, April 10, 2024 14:07, John F Sowa wrote: > In today's ZOOM meeting, I objected to the term 'neuro-symbolic hybrid' of > artificial neural networks (ANNs) with symbols. Hybrids simply relate two > (sometimes more) distinctly different things. But all the processes in > the mind and brain are integrated, and they all operate continuously in > different parts of the brain, which are all monitored and controlled by a > central executive. ... This seems to me to be modeling the body as a machine and not an accurate description. There are a wide variety of processes in the mind and brain -- many processes in the brain occur independently without being integrated either with each other or with the mind. I am excluding standard cellular level processes that go on in every cell and the processes of the circulatory system in the brain. Every neuron regularly chemically interacts with adjacent neurons & passes electrical signals along its surface. As far as i understand, much that goes on in the brain we are unaware of, neurohormone production, for example. Sensory input processing does not seem to be integrated with a number of other processes. I have seen no evidence of a central executive in the brain that monitors and controls all the other processes. I'm not sure how such a central executive could have evolved.

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 0

The central executive

by John F Sowa

In today's ZOOM meeting, I objected to the term 'neuro-symbolic hybrid' of artificial neural networks (ANNs) with symbols. Hybrid's imply two (sometimes more) distinctly different things. But all the processes in the mind and brain are integrated, and they all operate continuously in different parts of the brain, which are all monitored and controlled by a central executive. For AI, integration is the goal, and a hybrid stage is something that needs to be replaced with a tighter integration. I believe that the final document should emphasize the dangers that Gary Marcus and I discussed in March. And for that matter, artificial neural networks are not new. William James suggested the telephone network as a model, and more detailed mathematical models were developed in the 1940s. In fact, Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of AI, wrote his PhD thesis at Princeton on a mathematical model of neural networks in the early 1950s. Research in the cognitive sciences involves a collaboration of all the sciences that study any and every aspect of cognition: philosophy, psychology, logic, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology. As an overview of the methods of integration, I attach a copy (Section 7) of an article that is in press: Phaneroscopy: The Science of Diagrams. In that section, I show how the theories of C. S. Peirce and recent developments in the cognitive sciences support, illustrate, and explain the issues. In particular, they go far beyond just a hybrid of two approaches. They treat the brain and the mind it supports as an integrated system. The key to integration is a central executive, located in the frontal lobes that relates and controls every component in the cerebral cortex, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. Note the loop with a photo of Peirce standing in the center. It shows how the four steps of abduction, deduction, observation, and induction work together. Every iteration -- from milliseconds to hours to days -- involves guessing, reasoning, observing, and learning. These processes are not separated. They operate continuously. For details, see Section 7, which also contains several references to articles and slides with more detail. I also recommend The Central Executive Network (CEN): https://www.o8t.com/blog/central-executive-network#:~:text=Since%20its%20in… John

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Operator Variables in Logical Graphs • Discussion

by Jon Awbrey

Operator Variables in Logical Graphs • Discussion 1 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04/08/operator-variables-in-logical-gra… Re: Operator Variables in Logical Graphs • 1 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04/06/operator-variables-in-logical-gra… Re: Academia.edu • Stephen Duplantier • https://www.academia.edu/community/Lxn1Ww?c=yq1Rxy SD: ❝The best way for me to read Peirce is as if he was writing poetry. So if his algebra is poetry — I imagine him approving of the approach since he taught me abduction in the first place — there is room to wander. With this, I venture the idea that his “wide field” is a local algebraic geography far from the tended garden. There, where weeds and wild things grow and hybridize are the non‑dichotomic mathematics.❞ Stephen, “Abdeuces Are Wild”, as they say, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon … As far as my own guess, and a lot of my wandering in pursuit of it goes, I'd venture Peirce's field of vision opens up not so much from dichotomic to trichotomic domains of value as from dyadic to triadic relations, and all that with particular significance into the medium of reflection afforded by triadic sign relations. Resources — Logic Syllabus • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/logic-syllabus/ Semeiotic • https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic Sign Relations • https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation Triadic Relations • https://oeis.org/wiki/Triadic_relation Regards, Jon cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/l7jXzQ cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112236903165094091

1 year, 2 months

1
1
0 0

Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion

by Jon Awbrey

Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Discussion 1 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/04/02/peirces-1885-algebra-of-logic-dis… All, Daniel Everett raised an interesting point on Facebook. Re: FB | Daniel Everett • https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid029CAsWFV17xtECsjY7d… DE: ❝One of the most important papers in the history of logic. “On the Algebra of Logic” was the first to introduce the term “quantifier”. ❝Peirce, C.S. (1885), “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, American Journal of Mathematics 7, 180–202. • https://www.jstor.org/stable/2369451 ❞ I commented as follows. As far as quantification by any other word goes, Peirce had already introduced a more advanced and “functional” concept of quantification in his 1870 “Logic of Relatives”. The subsequent passage to Fregean styles of first order logic would turn out to be a retrograde movement toward syntacticism (a species of nominalism), as seen in the general run of what fol‑lowed in the fol‑lowing years. See ☞ Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-o… Especially ☞ “The Sign of Involution” • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/06/09/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-s… The connection between logical involution and universal quantification which Peirce put to use in his 1870 Logic of Relatives will turn up again a century later with the application of category theory to computer science and both of those in turn to logic. Just one more time Peirce was that far ahead of it. See ☞ Lambek and Scott (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press. • https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems#… Regards, Jon cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/VjQDGJ cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112202927662807287

1 year, 3 months

1
1
0 0

Survey of Animated Logical Graphs

by Jon Awbrey

Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 7 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03/18/survey-of-animated-logical-graphs… All, This is a Survey of blog and wiki posts on Logical Graphs, encompassing several families of graph‑theoretic structures originally developed by Charles S. Peirce as graphical formal languages or visual styles of syntax amenable to interpretation for logical applications. Please follow the above link for the full set of resources. Articles and blog series on the core ideas are linked below. Beginnings — Logical Graphs • First Impressions • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/24/logical-graphs-first-impressions/ Logical Graphs • Formal Development • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/09/01/logical-graphs-formal-development… Elements — Logic Syllabus • https://oeis.org/wiki/Logic_Syllabus Logical Graphs • https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs Minimal Negation Operators • https://oeis.org/wiki/Minimal_negation_operator Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems • https://oeis.org/wiki/Propositional_Equation_Reasoning_Systems Examples — Peirce's Law • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/10/18/peirces-law-a/ • https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_law Praeclarum Theorema • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/10/05/praeclarum-theorema-a/ • https://oeis.org/wiki/Logical_Graphs#Praeclarum_theorema Proof Animations • https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/ANIMATION#Proof_Animations Excursions — Cactus Language • https://oeis.org/wiki/Cactus_Language_%E2%80%A2_Overview Futures Of Logical Graphs • https://oeis.org/wiki/Futures_Of_Logical_Graphs Applications — Applications of a Propositional Calculator • Constraint Satisfaction Problems • https://www.academia.edu/4727842/Applications_of_a_Propositional_Calculator… Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Sequential Observation Data • https://oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey/Exploratory_Qualitative_Analysis_of_S… Differential Analytic Turing Automata • https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Analytic_Turing_Automata_%E2%80%A2_Overv… Survey of Theme One Program • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/26/survey-of-theme-one-program-6/ Regards, Jon cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/5M7EPn cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112219679796101870

1 year, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic”

by Jon Awbrey

Peirce's 1885 “Algebra of Logic” • Selection 1.1 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03/24/peirces-1885-algebra-of-logic-sel… All, I'm laying down a few source materials in preparation for a later discussion. Selection from C.S. Peirce, “On the Algebra of Logic : A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation” (1885) ❝§1. Three Kinds Of Signs❞ ❝Any character or proposition either concerns one subject, two subjects, or a plurality of subjects. For example, one particle has mass, two particles attract one another, a particle revolves about the line joining two others. A fact concerning two subjects is a dual character or relation; but a relation which is a mere combination of two independent facts concerning the two subjects may be called “degenerate”, just as two lines are called a degenerate conic. In like manner a plural character or conjoint relation is to be called degenerate if it is a mere compound of dual characters. ❝A sign is in a conjoint relation to the thing denoted and to the mind. If this triple relation is not of a degenerate species, the sign is related to its object only in consequence of a mental association, and depends upon a habit. Such signs are always abstract and general, because habits are general rules to which the organism has become subjected. They are, for the most part, conventional or arbitrary. They include all general words, the main body of speech, and any mode of conveying a judgment. For the sake of brevity I will call them “tokens”. [Note. Peirce more frequently calls these “symbols”.] Regards, Jon cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/LpeZP7 cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112156450035935700

1 year, 3 months

1
7
0 0

[CfP] [CoKA] : "Conceptual Knowledge Acquisition: Challenges, Opportunities, and Use Cases" workshop at CONCEPTS 2024

by Tom Hanika

***CoKA: Call for Contributions*** ================================================================ Conceptual Knowledge Acquisition: Challenges, Opportunities, and Use Cases Workshop at the 1st International Joint Conference on Conceptual Knowledge Structures (CONCEPTS 2024) September 9–13 2024, Cádiz, Spain Workshop Website: https://www.kde.cs.uni-kassel.de/coka/ Conference website: https://concepts2024.uca.es ================================================================ Formal concept analysis (FCA) can help make sense of data and the underlying domain --- provided the data is not too big, not too noisy, representative of the domain, and if there is data in the first place. What if you don’t have such data readily available but are prepared to invest in collecting it and have access to domain experts or other reliable queryable sources of information? Conceptual exploration comes to the rescue! Conceptual exploration is a family of knowledge-acquisition techniques within FCA. The goal is to build a complete implicational theory of a domain (with respect to a fixed language) by posing queries to a domain expert. When properly implemented, it is a great tool that can help organize the process of scientific discovery. Unfortunately, proper implementations are scarce and success stories of using conceptual exploration are somewhat rare and limited in scope. With this workshop, we intend to analyze the situation and, maybe, find a solution. If - you succeeded in acquiring new knowledge about or building a satisfying conceptual representation of some domain with conceptual exploration before; - you attempted conceptual exploration in application to your problem but failed miserably; - you want to use conceptual exploration to analyze some domain, but you don’t know where and how to start; - you are aware of alternatives to conceptual exploration; then come to the workshop to share your experiences, insights, ideas, and concerns with us! ================== Keywords and Topics ================== Knowledge Acquisition and Capture Conceptual Exploration Design Patterns and Paradigmatic Examples successful use cases and real-world applications challenges and lessons learned application principles missing theoretical foundations missing technical infrastructure integration with other theories and technologies ========================= Duration, Format, and Dates ========================= We invite contributions in the form of an extended abstract of up to two pages. In addition, supplementary material, such as data sets, detailed descriptions, or visualizations, may be submitted. The workshop is planned for half a day within the conference dates and at the same venue. It will consist of several short presentations each followed by a plenary discussion. Please send your contributions until *July 10, 2024* to tom.hanika(a)uni-hildesheim.de. If you are not sure whether your contribution matches the topics or the format of the workshop, you are welcome to contact the organizers prior to submitting the abstract. An acceptance notification will be sent within two weeks upon receiving the submission. =================== Workshop Organizers =================== - Tom Hanika, University of Hildesheim - Sergei Obiedkov, TU Dresden - Bernhard Ganter, Ernst-Schröder-Zentrum, Darmstadt

1 year, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Survey of Relation Theory

by Jon Awbrey

Survey of Relation Theory • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/03/23/survey-of-relation-theory-8/ All, In the present Survey of blog and wiki resources for Relation Theory, relations are viewed from the perspective of combinatorics, in other words, as a topic in discrete mathematics, with special attention to finite structures and concrete set‑theoretic constructions, many of which arise quite naturally in applications. This approach to relation theory is distinct from, though closely related to, its study from the perspectives of abstract algebra on the one hand and formal logic on the other. Please follow the above link for the full set of resources. A few basic articles are linked below. Relation Theory • https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory Relation Composition • https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_composition Relation Construction • https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_construction Relation Reduction • https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_reduction Relative Term • https://oeis.org/wiki/Relative_term Sign Relation • https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation Triadic Relation • https://oeis.org/wiki/Triadic_relation Six Ways of Looking at a Triadic Relation ⌬ 1 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/04/six-ways-of-looking-at-a-triadic-… Mathematical Demonstration and the Doctrine of Individuals • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/05/16/mathematical-demonstration-and-th… • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/05/16/mathematical-demonstration-and-th… Peirce's 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/09/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-o… • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-p… Regards, Jon cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/l8NX79 cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/112146365982354316

1 year, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

CG