[Heartlogic-dev] Re: perspectives or pronoun KIF model

[William L. Jarrold]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:25:06PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:44:30PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > > > For starters, can you explain this...
> > > >
> > > > (defconcept Individual-Intention (?i Intention)
> > > >   :documentation "like Jarrold's desirability")
> > > > (assert (and
> > > >          (Individual-Intention Purity)   ; indifferent
> > > >          (Individual-Intention Personal) ; happy
> > > >          (Individual-Intention Suffer))) ; sad
> > > >
> > > > ...Is Purity a kind of Individual-Intention
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > and what does (?i Intention) mean?...What is being asserted?
> > >
> > > (assert (forall ?x
> > >   (=> (Individual-Intention ?x)
> > >       (Intention ?x))))
> >
> > Really?  The power loom statement ...
> >
> > (?i Intention)
> >
> > ...is equivalent to the power loom statement...
> >
> > (assert (forall ?x
> >    (=> (Individual-Intention ?x)
> >    (Intention ?x))))
> >
> > ...?
> >
> > If, what is (? Foobar) equivalent too?
>
> Alone, it is like a type declaration.  If you use it
> in defconcept then you get the above inference.
>
> (defconcept Foobar-Specific (?fb Foobar))

Ah.  So it seems like...

(defconcept Foobar-Specific (?fg Foobar))

...is similar to (and maybe even equivalent to)...

(#$genls #$Foobar-Specific #$Foobar)

...in CycL.  Or in KM, it would be like so...

(Foobar-Specific has
        (superclases (Foobar))

>
> > I fear that to really grok your power loom file I am
> > going to have to grok a large book that explains powerloom
> > syntax.
>
> Or I'll rewrite it in KM ...

Tho, I would LOVE to learn PowerLoom, I have an even
stronger desire to focus my energies until I finish my
clinical internship.  Therefore, I suppose I would prefer
that.

>
> > > But try to get the big picture:
> > >
> > > 1. I am proposing a bidirectional mapping between
> > > Individual-Intention and Situational-Intention.
> > >
> > > 2. Recall that Individual-Intention is just another terminology
> > > for goal status (goal, no goal, or anti-goal).
> > >
> > > 3. A pair of "goal status" (two people) restrict the type
> > > of situations which can arise.  These general situation
> > > categories are the Situational-Intentions.
> >
> > This, #3, seems particularly hard to understand.
>
> Let's go back to discussing goal status as an affective state.

Sure!  Not that I hate this stuff, but pruning Individual-Intention
stuff increases focus.

>
> > > 4. The rest of the KR model is just elaborating the details
> > > of this mapping between Situational-Intention and a pair of
> > > Individual-Intentions.
> > >
> > > 5. In practice, the Situational-Intention typically constrains
> > > the verb.  For example, "person1 accepts <something> from person2".
> > > "Accepts" is the Situational-Intention for this example.  In other
> > > words, the verb is (to some extent) a function of the participants'
> > > goal status.
> > >
> > > Does that help or just confuse you more?
> >
> > It might help a little.  Maybe include the above explanotary text in
> > the powerloom file.
> >
> > Sorry, v general, incredibly ignorant meta question: Does power loom work?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I mean can you test your model and make sure it generates the desired
> > inferences?
>
> Yes, it works.
>
> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader
>