Unraveling Multimodality with Large Language Models.pdf
E.R.O.S.
1. Making Sense of Concepts
How do our ideas hit the mark?
Shinning a light on sensibility.
1
E.R.O.S.
The Quadranym Word-Sensibility Model
2. What’s in a word?
2
Making Sense of Concepts
The task is to collect commonsense knowledge. How much
information about the world is contained in a single word?
3. “I know nothing in the world that has as much
power as a word. Sometimes I write one, and I
look at it, until it begins to shine.”
–– Emily Dickinson
3
Making Sense of Concepts
4. 4
Q: Why can’t computers use language like people do?
A: People experience the world, computers don’t.
Making Sense of Concepts
5. Interacting with the world produces
instances of coherent sense, some of
which are apparent in the words we use.
The Premise
5
Making Sense of Concepts
6. There is a distinction to be made between a coherent sense of
a word and the potential conditions it may aim at in the world.
Coherent Sense Conditional Sense
6
Making Sense of Sense
7. Coherent
Sense
Conditional
Sense
• A desire to eat points to hungry as being a coherent sense of eat.
• What food you’ll have to eat becomes a conditional factor of eat.
Corpus: eat
I prepared a
nice bird!
What are we
having to eat?
Corpus: eat
7
Non-declarative: hungry Declarative: food
Word: eat
Making Sense of Sense
8. Conditional Sense
Denote EAT
Denote BIRD
The verb Eat and the noun Bird together form
a complete unit of thought, “Eat bird.” That
much is clear, what isn’t clear is how they are
categorized as objects of experience.
Let’s say Robin functions like a prototype to
provide one with an actual sense of the word,
Bird. Hungry is able to do a similar task for the
word, Eat. Each sense-word acts as a coherent
core for their perspective denotations. The
sense of "bird" (“robin”) converges with the
sense of "eat" ("hungry") to produce birds that
experience indicates as likely menu options.
robin
hungry
Potential Foods
Potential Birds
Find Meaning
Find Meaning
potential
potential
actual
actual
Coherent Sense
8
Making Sense of Sense
12. “When one encounters a new situation (or makes a substantial
change in one's view of the present problem) one selects from
memory a structure called a Frame. This is a remembered framework
to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary.”
― Marvin Minsky
12
Making Sense of Sense
13. 13
The Objective Field
(Deliberative Framework)
Source:
hungry
Include:
Selector
Target:
food
Exclude:
Critic
• Input
• Rerun
• Value
• Output
• Return
• Expense
actual potential
potential actual
robin
bird
Q-Unit system1 & Network system2
Closing The Loop
(Q-Unit: Heuristic-Framework)
Making Sense of Sense
14. “Framing is the most ordinary thing we do. A frame is a coherent
structure of related concepts so to help make sense of things. ”
― George Lakoff
14
Making Sense of Sense
16. “By their very nature, heuristic shortcuts will produce biases,
and that is true for both humans and artificial intelligence, but
the heuristics of AI are not necessarily the human ones.”
― Daniel Kahneman
16
Making Sense of Sense
17. Objective State:
condition-potential
Target
Action &
Measure
Modes
Subjective State:
coherent-actual
Source
Hungry
E=sate
Poultry
is Food
R=starve
Robin
not Poultry
Eat:
• The probable conclusion is drawn
from the statement, “Eat bird”.
• Robin is not bird in eat
frame of system 1.
• Eat frame is now in discord with
bird frame of system 1.
Poultry is Bird
Robin not Bird
Selector: potential
Critic: actual
Deliberative Analysis
Categorical Resolution
System2
17
Making Sense of Sense
(Heuristic Analysis System1)
18. “Your frame of reference is what you see.”
― Jacque Fresco
18
Making Sense of Sense
19. nutrition
Subjective
hungry
EAT
Food
Objective
ingest
Bird
Poultry
S = function
O = structure
O = exclusive
S = inclusive
survive
Coherent à Conditional Coherent à Conditional
⊇
potential
actual
actual
actual
potential
potential
actual
potential
actual potential actual potential
19
Input......................... by _actual:[S _eat à O _bird]
Output:.......... by _potential:[S _food à O _poultry]
Self
Is
Here
Actual
S = hungry
Inclusive
E = bird
Potential
O = food
Exclusive
R = poultry
actual
potential
Nested States Hierarchy: FROM General TO Relevant
Arrows = Dynamic Sense
Making Sense of Sense
20. “The only source of knowledge is experience.” ― Albert Einstein
20
Making Sense of Concepts
23. 23
Unit: [Nutrient(hungry) ⊇ Matter(Energy)]
Flux: a sense driven by the environment.
Unit: remembering how that sense has been driven before.
Flux:[Actual(potential)] → [Potential(actual)]
Unit:[Potential(actual) → Actual(potential)]
Flux is a double bracket: [b] → [a]
Unit is a single bracket: [a → b]
Flux:[Matter(energy)] à [Nutrient(hungry)]
Remember-ing
Environmental-ing
Subjective a
Objective b
Subjective a
Objective b
See Q Scripts in menu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Script Units
See Q layers, Q-Unit goals form discrete hierarchies, realms and domains
Making Sense of Concepts
24. 24
[Matter(energy)] à [Nutrient(hungry)]
Passive-Potential
Objective Guided
Active-Actual
Subjective Driven
Unit:[Potential(actual)⊇Actual(potential)]
Flux:[Actual(Potential)] à [Potential(actual)]
Causal Flux
Environmental Driver
Situational Context
“Eat Bird”
Subjective Sense
Objective Sense
Experience indicates likely menu options.
Making Sense of Concepts
Script Cycles
25. “We are storytelling creatures, and as children we acquire
language to tell those stories that we have inside us.”
― Jerome Bruner
25
Making Sense of Concepts
26. I want
chocolate
mousse!
I understand…
but you’re telling
me this, why?
In our model, once motivated, the listener’s
intention is to find cues in the content so to sync
with oscillating coherent and conditional factors.
Intimating Mental States
Pierre
Marie
26
Making Sense of Concepts
27. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Resolve(belief)] à [Urge(desire)]
27
Conditional Sense Coherent Sense
Causal Flux
Marie: agent (cf., semantic role)
[S _self à O _desire]
[S _desire à O _proposition]
[S _proposition à O _denote]
[S _denote à O _utter]
[S _utter à O _proposition]
[S _proposition à O _other]
Pierre: patient (cf., semantic role)
[S _other à O _hear]
[S _hear à O _Proposition]
[S _proposition à O _cause]
[S _cause à O _intention]
[S _intention à O _proposition]
[S _proposition àO _denote]
[S _denote à O _instantiate]
[S _instantiate à O _That_Proposition]
Scripts
. !, See, Intimating process of uttered signs. (Husserl, E., [23]) Note, Representing causal flux FROM reference TO sense in a Q script
driver
Urge & Resolve Cycle
Making Sense of Concepts
28. “Thinking is an active verb, think-ing. It means you are
doing something. One thing you are doing is criticizing
your thoughts, seeing whether they cohere. And if they
don’t, you begin to change them and experiment with
others. You get new intuitions, new insights.”
― David Bohm
28
Making Sense of Concepts
29. See, Q Theory Introduction in site menu. Also See, The Principle of the Orientation of Interactivity in posts: post 6
Continuous
Singularity
E: active-potential
Discrete
Multiplicity
R: passive-actual
29
active-actual
passive-potential
Coherent Sense
Conditional Sense
Selector: perceiving
Critic: percepts
How about
Cupcakes?
sigh
* *
That would be great
Sameness Difference
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making Sense of Concepts
30. “To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein
30
Making Sense of Concepts
32. --------------------------------------------------------------
[urge _hunger à resolve _food]<find>
[urge _food à resolve _fish] <find>
[urge _fish à resolve _water] <find>
[urge _water à resolve _dive] <find>
[urge _dive à resolve _swim]<find>
[urge _swim à resolve _catch] <find>
[urge _catch à resolve _eat] <find>
[urge _eat à resolve _sate] <stop>
SCRIPT
See, Cognition as Agent/Environment Dynamics (Chemero[5]
)
32
Urge & Resolve Cycles.
Making Sense of Concepts
33. 33
“The meaning or value of a thing consists of
what it affords.” ― James J. Gibson
Making Sense of Concepts
34. TABLE
Bench
scaffold
chair
roof
…
e = raise
r = flat
o = top
s = surface
?
34
[Objective(surface)]<find>[Subjective(surface)]
• The coherent (pre-reflective) state affords actual questions.
• The conditional (reflective) state affords potential answers.
Making Sense of Concepts
36. “To understand is to experience harmony
between what we aim at and what is given,
between the intention and the performance - and
the body is our anchorage in the world. ”
― Maurice Merleau-Ponty
36
Making Sense of Concepts
39. [Subjective _coconut à objective _rock]<find>[Subjective _rock à objective _smash]<find>
[Subjective _smash à objective _coconut]<find>[Subjective _coconut à objective _open]<find>
Predicate: tool
Predicate: hard Causal Flux[1]
FROM Actual(potential) TO Potential(actual)
39
[S _open à O _flesh]<find>[S _flesh à O _chew]<find>[S _chew à O _swallow]<stop>
Predicate: food
Predicate: soft
FROM Actual(potential) TO Potential(actual)
Causal Flux
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, Causal flux in this instance can also be referred to as a Modal Flux. Note, Q scripts join almost like a centipede where each locomotion system sends signal to the next system.
Script
Making Sense of Concepts
40. 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, See, image schema - The Body in the Mind (Johnson M., 1990[*])
1, See, : Pre-cognitive Conditions, Immanent with the Sensible before Transcendental Categories - Phenomenology of Perception (Merleau-Ponty[*])
Meta-Dimensional Roles Content Dimensional Roles
Bias Eat(x)
Goal Flesh(x)
Motivate Coconut(x)
Task Open(x)
Modify Smash(x)
Eat(x)
(∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Sate(hungry) ⊇ Starve(food)(x)]
(∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Intact(chew) ⊇ Fragment(substance)(x)]
(∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Available(consume) ⊇ Deplete(resource)(x)]
(∀x) eat(x) ⟹ [Stable(corrode) ⊇ Disintegrate(substance)(x)]
Books, Publications & General References
Making Sense of Concepts
41. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context Cycle Rate Subjective Objective
1. Bias –––––– cycle rate Negative a Positive b
2. Motivate ––– cycle rate Urge a Resolve b
3. Task –––––– cycle rate Motivate a Goal b
4. Modify –––– cycle rate Function a Structure b
5. Manipulate – cycle rate Control a Conform b
41
See, Ready-To-Hand includes a larger purpose (Heidegger, 1927) M-role Information can influence between layers and levels.
Hierarchy: General to Relevant Cycles
Making Sense of Concepts
42. --------------------------------------------------------------
1. [S = Negative à O = Positive]: bias (self conscious – emotions)*
2. [S = Urge à O = Resolve]: motivate (self reflective - emotional thinking)*
3. [S = Motivate à O = Goal]: plan (reflection on world - thinking)*
4. [S = Function à O = Structure]: modify (deliberative reaction - thinking)*
5. [S = Control à O = Conform]: manipulate (learned - reaction)*
6. [S = Be à O = Become]: transform (instinctive - reaction)*
*See, Six level Model (Minsky35)
42
Making Sense of Concepts
43. 43
Making Sense of Sense
“'Facts, facts, facts,' cries the scientist if he
wants to emphasize the necessity of a firm
foundation for science. What is a fact? A fact is
a thought that is true. But the scientist will
surely not recognize something which depends
on men's varying states of mind to be the firm
foundation of science.” – Gottlob Frege
44. Potential
A STATE Of A STAR
It is Phosphorus NOT Hesperus for all to see
No more experience is necessary
So now let’s go have our morning tea
The same for you is the same for me
Making Sense of Sense
That Star:(∀x) star(x) ⟹ [Above(earth)⊇ Below(light)](x)
Actual
The Sense & Reference of a Denotation[1]
:
1. Sense and reference are identical to themselves a=a.
2. Different senses can reference same denotation a=b.
That Star
Same: The Sense Phosphorus = That Star Phosphorus[1]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.See, Sense and Reference (Frege G,[13]) 2. Sense and reference play particular ontological roles and provide relational descriptions between Q-Unit dimensions.
44
45. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Star:[Phosphorus à morning]
That Star:[Hesperus à evening]
• Identical reference to one object (a=a): no more experience necessary (Sense & Reference = passive difference).
• Nonidentical reference to one object (a=b): more experience necessary (Sense & Reference = active sameness).
General Topic: Position:[Coherent-actual = Appearanceà Condition-potential = time and space]
That Planet:[Venus ⊇ Phosphorus and Hesperus]
passive
passive
active
45
1. See, Sense and Reference(Frege G,[13])2. See, Twin Earth "'meanings' just ain't in the head.”(Putnam H,[*])
Making Sense of Sense
No No, that’s not true
The same for me is a difference for you
Phosphorus and Hesperus are both Venus all the way
She disappears and reappears at different times of day
But remember… water is the same for all to see
Except on twin earth where it’s XYZ
”’meanings' just ain't in the head.”[2]
It’s all around us in the world insteadJ
Difference: The Sense Phosphorus and The
Sense Hesperus = That Planet Venus[1]
Books, Publications & General References
46. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subjective
Ontology
(Active Hemisphere)
E=solar system
S=astronomer[3]
Objective
Ontology
(Passive Hemisphere)
O=planet
R=second
Mode
Mode
Quadranym Intentionality logic Reference Sense
Expansive-Subjective attitude premise context Mode of context
representation[1]
Reductive-Objective proposition conclusion object Mode of object
representation[1]
Use of Concept[2] Truth Condition[2]
Theme-Topic: Venus
2, See, Use of Concept, Language Game, Truth Conditions,’ (Wittgenstein[24,25])
context object
Implicates Active Sameness:
more experience necessary
Implicates Passive Difference:
no more experience necessary
46
1, See, Modes of Representation (Frege[13]
)
Making Sense of Sense
3, S=astronomy can also fit theme-topic S _role
Potential
Actual
potential
interactions
with the world
actual
contexts
of experience
47. “We think in generalities, but we live in detail.”
― Alfred North Whitehead
47
Making Sense of Sense
49. Quantifying Spatiality: Door is configured such that, Barrier B is the conditional category of the
coherent category Passage P IFF Door D is a conditional category of the coherent category Space S.
• Coherent P is all S
• Condition B is some S
• by _Space: [Coherent = void ⊇ Condition = between{door, passage, barrier...}]
• ∀x: Sx → DPBx = coherent: Open(door)
• ∃x: Sx → DPBx = conditional: Close(door)
49
Making Sense of Sense
51. “To exist as an individual means not simply to be numerically
distinct from other things but to be a self-pole in a dynamic
relationship with alterity, with what is other, with the world.”
― Evan Thompson
51
Making Sense of Sense
52. By _space: [Subjective = void ⊇ Objective = door]
Subjective
Space
Open
Subjective
State: passage
y
x
subjective
state: barrier
Reductive mode
Expansive
mode
0 Close
0
Subjective
State: Void
Finite
Infinite
52
Making Sense of Sense
The zero-point of any Q-concept is a self identification opportunity.
pass
y
X impasse
Reductive mode
Expansive
mode
0
Subjective
State: [_solid]<find>[_condition]
0
y
x
53. A real-world locked door means the subjectivity
of the concept is denied leaving one faced with
only the objectivity of the concept. Still, as cued,
it’s a door, because control of Door is
categorically there even if not actually there.
S = dooràControl/Actual O = dooràConform/Potential
Coherent
space
Conditional
space
Door[passage à barrier]
Open
Subjective
State: passage
Objective
state: barrier
Reductive mode (-)
Expansive
mode
(+)
0 Close
By _door: [Subjective = passage ⊇ Objective = barrier]
Objective Space
53
Making Sense of Sense
54. Empty is coherently having space.
Between is the condition transitioning space.
Objective Network
Conditional Roles
Space
Modes
Subjective State
Coherent Role
void
infinite
exit
out
finite
enter
in
potential
potential
actual
actual
Note: potential/actual arrows below
are in relation to modes (not states).
States: actual à potential
Modes: potential à actual
potential
actual
actual
actual
actual
potential
Space:
54
Making Sense of Sense
55. • Subjective: The entity void is ubiquitous to the topic
of space by virtue of void’s singular principle in every
condition of space.
• Objective: The entity between is a multiplicity of
principles, such as, entities and changing properties.
One Small detail.
55
Making Sense of Sense
56. “I asked myself about the present: how wide it was,
how deep it was, how much was mine to keep.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
56
Making Sense of Sense
58. The Doors of Time… like we transition space, we transition time… and rarely the other way around.
Everyone does it, we go to the edge of the pool and dip our toe in the water; if the
temperature feels warm we enter quickly if cool we hesitate. The reason we
hesitate to get into a nice pool on a nice hot day is often the change and not
necessarily the temperature. Once calibrated to air temps our bodies will resist
change because of how sensibility works. The notice of change is what concerns us.
From: If not now when?
To: If now then?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-or-warm-can-we-really-tell/
58
Making Sense of Sense
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Test(swim)] à [Temp(change)]
Conditional Sense Coherent Sense
Causal Flux
Remember-ing Loop Forms Units
[Temp(change) à Test(swim)]
driver
Opportunity drives ability.
Ability assesses opportunity.
59. Objective State
Networks
Conditional Roles
Time
Modes
Subjective
State
Coherent Role
present
future
swim
water
past
test
temp
Present is coherently having time.
Event is the condition transitioning time.
potential
potential
actual
potential
actual
actual
potential
actual
Note: potential/actual arrows below
are in relation to modes (not states).
States: actual à potential
Modes: potential à actual
Time:
59
Making Sense of Sense
60. The everyday sense of time comes when Now becomes objectified.
60
Making Sense of Sense
61. What Now are we talking about?
61
Making Sense of Sense
• Subjective: The entity present is ubiquitous to the
topic of time by virtue of present's singular principle
in every condition of time.
• Objective: The entity Event is a multiplicity of
principles, such as, entities and changing properties.
63. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective
Time future past event present
Door open close barrier passage
perception stimuli select organize interpret
logic proposition conclusion evidence argument
scientific hypothesis fact law theory
science prediction test analysis hypothesis
Quadranym
Matrix
63
Making Sense of Sense
64. Expansive: novel, general.
Reductive: familiar, specific.
Objective: conditional notion.
Subjective: coherent notion.
General Domains
Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective
time future past event present
door open close barrier passage
perception stimuli select organize interpret
logic proposition conclusion evidence argument
scientific hypothesis fact law theory
science prediction test analysis hypothesis
64
Making Sense of Sense
65. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective
time future past event present
door open close barrier passage
perception stimuli select organize interpret
logic proposition conclusion evidence argument
scientific hypothesis fact law theory
science prediction test analysis hypothesis
Expansive: novel, general.
Reductive: familiar, specific.
Objective: conditional notion.
Subjective: coherent notion.
65
Making Sense of Sense
General Domains
66. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective
time future past event present
door open close barrier passage
perception stimuli select organize interpret
logic proposition conclusion evidence argument
scientific hypothesis fact law theory
science prediction test analysis hypothesis
Expansive: novel, general. Objective: conditional organization.
Subjective: coherent notion. Reductive: familiar, specific.
66
Making Sense of Sense
General Domains
67. Topic Expansive Reductive Objective Subjective
time future past event present
door open close barrier passage
perception stimuli select organize interpret
logic proposition conclusion evidence argument
scientific hypothesis fact law theory
science prediction tested analysis hypothesis
Reductive: familiar, specific.
Objective: conditional notion.
Subjective: coherent interpretation.
Expansive: novel, general.
67
Making Sense of Sense
General Domains
71. Subjective ⊇ Objective States The Bias Roles
Expansive ⊇ Reductive Modes The Difference Roles
Actual ⊇ Potential State Set S ⊇ O
Coherent ⊇ Conditional State Set S ⊇ O
Function ⊇ Structure State Set S ⊇ O
Control ⊇ Conform State Set S ⊇ O
urge ⊇ resolve State Set S ⊇ O
Negative ⊇ Positive State Set S ⊇ O
Positive ⊕ Negative Mode Set E(+) ⊕ R(-) ∨ E(-) ⊕ R(+)
Potential ⊇ Actual Mode set E ⊇ R
General ⊇ Particular Mode set E ⊇ R
Active ⊇ Passive Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o)
Infinite ⊇ Finite Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o)
Inclusive ⊇ Exclusive Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o)
Singular ⊇ Multiple Hemispheres E(s) ⊇ R(o)
71
Neg and Pos modes:
Always Switchable Roles
Switch Polarity
Making Sense of Sense
72. 72
The Q Categorical Axiom:
State: actual ⊇ potential
Mode: potential⊇ actual
Ontological Description:
A State is an actual being. An actual being has a becoming; it is always a potential becoming.
A Mode is potential action. A potential action has a difference; it is always an actual difference.
actual potential
potential actual
State
Mode
Active Passive
Dimensions exist in time.
time
How to think about The Quadranym.
Making Sense of Sense
73. 73
The Drawbridge
The states of a drawbridge determines one's crossing ability.
To come upon a drawbridge one encounters its actual state
as either a crossing state or a non-crossing state.
The modes of a drawbridge refers to its actions. To refer to a drawbridge
is to refer to its potential modes indicating the up or the down action.
A simple way to help think about Quadranyms …
actual potential
potential actual
State
Active Passive
Time & Goal
Mode
Making Sense of Sense
74. 74
The Q Categorical Axiom:
State: actual ⊇ potential
Mode: potential ⊇ actual
The actual state is always the superset where cross-ability and non-cross-ability
both exist. The potential state is the subset where only one of those states exists.
The potential mode is always the superset where the up-ness and down-ness are both
active measures. The actual mode is the subset where the actual difference is identified.
Making Sense of Sense
75. potential actual
action measure
actual potential
being becoming
Being à Becoming Cycles Action à Measure Cycles
States
Active Passive
Modes
Active Passive
Bias
Actual ⊇ Potential
Time Cycle Space Cycle
A reciprocal dynamic between ability
and opportunity to find resolution.
75
1. To encounter an active state refers to an experience of actual context and its potential in time, thus, pertaining to the actual state category.
2. To encounter an active mode refers to a potential action and its discerning actual measure, thus, pertaining to the potential mode category.
The Q Categorical Axiom:
State: actual ⊇ potential
Mode: potential ⊇ actual
Difference
Drawbridge:[Potential{Up}(actual(self}) ⊇ Actual{Down}(potential{crossability)]
The draw bridge is being in time The drawbridge is becoming in space
Subject = Cross-ability Predicate = Up or Down
Making Sense of Sense
State = Temporal Sense Mode = Spatial Sense
Potential ⊇ Actual
76. E=premise O=evidence
S=claim R=conclusion
argument
Argument
• Subjective: The entity claim is ubiquitous to the topic argument by virtue of claim’s singular principle
of every condition of argument.
• Objective: The entity evidence is a multiplicity of principles, such as, entities and changing properties.
In conclusion, what we are proposing is a Quadranym Argument.
76
Making Sense of Sense
78. Q Code Tags: qt, qe, qr, qo, qs
(qe) expansive (qo) objective
(qs) subjective (qr) reductive
(qt) = topic
THE QUADRANT GRAPH HELPS TO ILLUSTRATE DIMENSIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS, DIAGONAL, TOP & BOTTOM, LEFT & RIGHT
78
Framing a Topic Using The Quadranym Square
Making Sense of Concepts
79. 79
Role: Expansive
Role: Reductive
Role: Subjective
Role: Objective
Positive Negative
Pull
Push
We present an common sense knowledge acquisition effort to collect quadranym Polyordinate
theoretical constructs, such as, in the examples given below. We use the term quadranym (literally, ‘four-
words’) to mean four dimensional subordinate elements that defines a superordinate axiom.
Making Sense of Concepts
80. All Qs are tested and certified by humans. To assist in this process a
simple sorting program is used to read back quadranym constructs
through an array of natural language scripts called expression-frames.
Expression-frames are tailored to fit a specific realm or domain.
(qt) = topic, (qe) = expansive, (qr) = reductive, (qo) = objective (qs)= subjective.
It is correct to be (qe) instead of (qr) when the situation is (qo) but could have been
(qs) when regarding (qt).
Expression Frame
Prime Quadranym
80
Making Sense of Concepts
81. qt = mood, qe = better, qr = worse, qo = happy, qs = sad
It is correct to be (better) instead of (worse) when the situation is (happy) but could have been
(sad) when regarding (mood).
It is correct to be (worse) instead of (better) when the situation is (sad) but could have been
(happy) when regarding (mood).
People can quickly see if their Quadranym makes sense to them.
qt = sensitivity, qe = soothed, qr = irritated, qo = comfort, qs = discomfort
It is correct to be (soothed) instead of (irritated) when the situation is (comfort) but could have been
(discomfort) when regarding (sensitivity).
81
Making Sense of Concepts
83. 83
The Polynym Thesaurus
A collection of topical dimensions of any number.
• Quadranyms represent autogenously unitized contextual dimensions.
• Polynyms represent strategically divided contextual dimensions
For normal communications subjects are broken down into any number of dimensions. The Q system
works on two levels, on the inter-personal level where all dimensions are configured as predicates,
these are polynyms. On the intra-personal or responsive level only quadrant dimensions are used.
Like quadranyms, polynyms can also be collected. Many polynyms already
exist in the world since they represent any number of dimensions for
strategic thinking. For example, Freud’s polynym (p3) , Psyche: Id, Ego,
Superego. It is used as a strategy to understand the human mind.
Making Sense of Concepts
84. Acquisition Interface
example: basic (cf., html, Java, python)
84
We present an interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition effort to collect superordinate
theoretical constructs, such as, in the current examples. We use the term polynym (literally,
‘many-word’) to mean an array of subordinate elements that defines a superordinate axiom.
Making Sense of Concepts
85. 85
polynym: a theoretical construct that is best
described using an array of subordinate terms
id ego superego
Psyche (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
topic (source)
P=denominator
A=area/discipline
subordinates
}
}
Introducing
Making Sense of Concepts
86. 86
id ego superego
Psyche (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
topic (source)
P=denominator
A=area/discipline
subordinates
}
}
Superordinate
The theoretical construct = {Freud, Psyche}
Subordinates
The theory’s divisions = {id, ego, superego}
Making Sense of Concepts
87. 87
id ego superego
Psyche (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
topic (source)
P=denominator
A=area/discipline
subordinates
}
}
Numerator
The theory topic = {psyche}
Denominator
The number of subordinates = {3}
Making Sense of Concepts
88. 88
Goal
• collect synsets of theory subordinates
• build a network of interdisciplinary theories
• enable development by web community
Uses • machine learning • mapping between disciplines
• story understanding • knowledge base inferencing
• interdisciplinary research • language translation
id ego superego
earth metal wood fire water
Psyche, Personality (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
chi (Wu Xing)
P=5 A=philosophy
reasoning
P=2 A=cog-sci
inductive deductive
innate
instinct
impulse
reflex
want
desire
me
self
rational
reason
resolve
decide
ideal
moral
conscience
self-reflection
restraint
disapproval
synsets
topic (source)
P=denominator
A=area/discipline
subordinates
}
}
}
{
{
Making Sense of Concepts
89. 89
Synonym sets (synsets) are essential for story understanding and language
translation. However, meaning can change in context of a specific theory…
≠
ego
personality (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
self
rational
reason
resolve
decide
ego
English (WordNet)
conceit
narcissism
pride
vanity
self-esteem
Like a thesaurus, synonym sets in a lexical database like WordNet[#] are highly aligned in
meaning. In the context of a superordinate construct, synonym sets may be more abstract.
Creating super/subordinate synonym sets is a unique way to define and compare axioms.
Making Sense of Concepts
90. 90
A network of interdisciplinary theories and accompanying synsets can be built
communally. Specialists in different fields collect and compare ideas in one location.
Expert 1 Expert 2
personality (Freud)
P=3 A=psychology
energy (chakra)
P=7 A=philosophy
mood (Ekman)
P=6 A=psychology
intelligence (Gardner)
P=7 A=psychology
chi (Wu Xing)
P=5 A=philosophy
truth (Buddha)
P=4 A=philosophy
Making Sense of Concepts
91. 91
Related theories can be retrieved together, even if originating from different domains.
theology metaphysics
man (Shultze)
P=3 A=theology
man (Hsing)
P=5 A=metaphysics
Search: humanities
natural spritual carnal common worthy superior called sage
Making Sense of Concepts
92. Commonsense Knowledge
Acquisition & Ontology
The Quadranym Sensibility Model (Q): The Q proposal is a method to research and represent word
level concepts, commonsense knowledge and the intersects that dispense a human-like sensibility.
It’s easier for computers to perform accurate
quantum calculations than to derive a clear
moral message from a simple children’s story.
92
Making Sense of Concepts
93. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bruner, J. (1984) Actual minds possible world, MIT Press.
2. Jon Barwise and John Perry, Situations and Attitudes, 1983. MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-02189-7
3. Chalmers, D. J. (2010) The Character of Consciousness, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Chalmers, D. J. (1996) The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Chemero, A., (2009) Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Clark, A., Chalmers, D. J. (1998), reprint, (2010) The Extended Mind. MIT Press.
1. Clark A. (2015) Surfing Uncertainty, Oxford University Press.
1. Dahlgren, K. (1988) Naïve Semantics For Natural Language Understanding, Springer US, copy right holder: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
1. Dreyfus, H.L. (ed.) (1982) Husserl, Intentionality and Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
2. Fillmore, C. (1968) "Frame semantics”, (1982) In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co.,
3. Fodor, J. A. (1978) “Propositional Attitudes” in RePresentations: (1984) Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science, J.A. Fodor, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1981.
4. Frege, G. (1891) Function and Concept, in Jenaische Gesellschaft für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft,
5. Frege, G. (1892) On Sense and Reference, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik
6. Frege, G. (1892) Concept and Object, in Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie XVI
7. Fries, P. (2005). "A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence".
1. Gallagher S. (2005 )How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press.
2. Gibson, J.J. (1950). The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Boston: Hughton Mifflin.
1. Gibson, J.J. (1972). A Theory of Direct Visual Perception. In J. Royce, W. Rozenboom (Eds.). The Psychology of Knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach.
2. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds.).
3. Heidegger M. (1927) Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962.
4. Hoff B. (1982) The Tao of Pooh. Dutton
5. Husserl, E. (1900/1970) Logical Investigations, (Engl. Transl. by Findlay, J.N.), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
6. Husserl, E. (1913) Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy.
7. Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.
8. Kahneman D. Tversky A.(2000). Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge University Press.
9. Kripke S. (1972) Semantics of natural language, Reidel Publishing Company.
10. Lakeoff G., Johnson M, (1980) Metaphores we live by, University of Chicago Press.
11. Lenat, D. (2001) Hal's Legacy, 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality. Common Sense and the Mind of HAL". Cycorp, Inc.
12. Lenat, D. and Guha R. V. (1990). Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project. Addison-Wesley.
13. Matuszek C. (2005) "Searching for Common Sense: Populating Cyc from the Web". Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
14. Merleau-Ponty M. (1945) Phenomenology of Perception, first published, Editions Gallimard, Paris.
15. Miller G. A., Beckwith R, Fellbaum C. D., Gross D., Miller K. (1990). WordNet: An online lexical database. Int. J. Lexicograph
16. Minsky, M. (1986) The Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster.
17. Minsky, M. (2006). The Emotion Machine. Simon & Schuster.
18. Myin E. (2013) Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content MIT Press.
1. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
2. Prinz, J. (2012) The Conscience Brain, Oxford University Press.
3. Rosch, E. (1975) “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories", Journal of Experimental Psychology.
4. Searle, J. (1983) Intentionality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Stamenov, N.I., and Gallese, V. (2002) Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
1. Singh, P. (2002) The Open Mind Common Sense Project, MIT Medi a Lab January 1, 2002: KurzweilAI.net.
2. Velleman, J. D. 1989. Practical Reflection . Princeton: Princeton University Press. "The Guise of the Good” In Velleman 2000.
3. Whitehead, A. N. (1929), Process and Reality, New York: Macmillan.
4. Whitehead, A. N. (1933) Adventures of Ideas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; New York: Macmillan.
5. Williams, R.R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. SUNY Press.
1. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations , G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Wittgenstein, L. (1921) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C. K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind
93
Making Sense of Concepts
Important CS acquisition projects (The Cyc project: ‘Common Sense knowledge Base’ (Lenat, Guha, 1990)) (Open Mind Common Sense (Singh, P. 2002))
Reference Page Not Complete
94. Dane Scalise – Researcher
Scotty Vercoe – MIT Media Lab
Making Sense of Concepts
The Quadranym Sensibility Model (EROS)
A Look at the Ordinariness of the Mythic Sense
Identify the box that you seek to think out of;-)
94
Dedicated to coders and thinkers
Buildintuit.com
