[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing

[William L. Jarrold]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:28:52PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > > Btw, emotion eliciting situation is what Clark Elliot
> > > > has called the cue.
> > >
> > > Do you have a citation for that?  It would be cool to include
> > > such a citation in the glossary.
> >
> > I think you have one now, right?  As I recall you found his dissertation
> > and loved it.
>
> I found his dissertation, but I couldn't find "cue" in it!  Am I
> skimming too fast?
>
> Or do you have any other ideas for tracking this down?

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

Clark Elliot uses the term emotion eliciting condition.

I use the term cue or scenario cue as, one might say, a specific type of
emotion eliciting condition.  Or one might say, an experimentally
operationalizable or experimentally controllable emotion eliciting
condition.

Hey, look, Bill of the Past meets Bill of the Present...Here is
the entry in the glossary:

\item{{\bf Scenario Cue:} A term created for the purposes of this
dissertation to refer to an emotion eliciting condition, a situation
which provokes an emotional response, or at least is a candidate for
provoking such a response.  All scenario cues have two parts, an
overriding goal (see also) and an outcome (see also).  I chose the
term ``scenario cue'' in order to emphasize that it is merely a cue
for an appraisal. Scenario cues can be refered to by item ids, e.g. a1
or d3.  But also identifiers such as a1b1 are used to identify
scenario cues.  Note that item a1 and item b1 share the same scenario
cue.  Thus, the convention I follow is that this scenario cue is
called a1b1.  In Study1 Phase 2 and Study 2 scenario cues could be
simple or complex.  In all other studies, scenario cues were always
simple.  See also item.}

>
> > >   At bedtime daddy makes Toby some hot chocolate.
> > >     participatingAgent = Toby, daddy
> >
> > Just to be sure....participatingAgents maps between an event or situation
> > (depending on how general you want the slot to be) and an Agent.  The
> > agent may participate from afar, like a general participates in
> > a war by directing it to very directly, like where daddy actually
> > physically touches hot chocolate making instruments.
>
> Yes.  WLJ >>notes

Does this mean you are saving that bit of text verbatim to your notes
or is this just a nerdy (but cute) way of saying "Ah, I see what you
are saying and have noted it."

>
> > > For any given appraisal, there is an appraiser.
> >
> > Yes.  In most contexts, I think it makes sense to say that there is
> > exactly one appraiser for every appraisal.  After all, appraisal is kind
> > of like thinking.  So, even tho you and I might be thinking the same
> > thought, we are not participating in the same thinking event.  Your
> > thinking occurs in your brain and my thinking occurs in my brain.  An
> > exception might be the Borg on star trek where they think collectively.
> > And then again, I can see a different kind of thinking, less
> > materialistically defined which CAN involve two people (e.g. "The
> > thinking of Marx and Engles occured most intensely between the years of
> > XXXX".)  But lets stick with simple definitions for starters.  When we
> > take our system to high school, we can teach it fancier concepts like how
> > Borg's appraise and/or think about things.
>
> OK, good point.  WLJ >>notes
>
> > > The appraiser is one of the two participatingAgents.  Correct?
> >
> > Often yes.  Certainly for the 3 year old view of the world, I suppose.
> >
> > Then again you can be watching the 2nd Superbowl on TV and be
> > an appraiser of it even tho it is quite a stretch to claim that you
> > were a participatingAgent in it.
>
> Certainly it is a stretch to say that you are participating in the
> situation "superbowl", however, why is it a stretch to say that you
> are a participating-agent of the situation "watching the superbowl on
> TV"?

It isn't that much of a stretch.  We are thinking along the same lines.
The overall discussion issue is: "The appraiser is one of the
two participatinAgents."....Your WatchingSuperBowlEvent001 is a case
in which the appraiser is also a participatingAgent.  But with my
example, I was trying to argue that the appraiser is not necessarily
a participatingAgent....To use a creative, fun example: In Newton's
Watchmaker's universe, God is not a participatingAgent in
TheUnfoldingOfEverdayEvents.  But He certainly weeps (i.e. is a
is an appraiser) when bad stuff happens.

>
> In other words, I define the situation cue pragmatically as whatever
> is going on.

Yes, any good KR system should allow one to define the situation
pragmatically.  Many times but not always the

> How can you presume a participatingAgent who is
> disconnected from her associated situation?

The above sentence makes more sense if I read it with appraiser in place
of participatingAgent.  If it is a typo and you have understood my
responses then you need no more discussion of this branch of the
discussion.  If that sentence is not a typo, I is confused.  Reset.
Happy Birthday.  What were you saying?

>
> > It would be great to save these kinds of examples and refinements to the
> > definitions of these concepts on the actual slots.  I like to use
> > Cyc for this.  It has a much nicer user interface than KM.  But whatever.
> > If you would like to help nudge the model along in this respect, I would
> > appreciate it.  As we get more serious about KR, you'll probably hear
> > me whine about this more.
>
> Yes yes.
>
> > > Now I want to parameterize one more facet of appraisal.  Given this
> > > cue / appraisal:
> > >
> > >   At bedtime daddy makes Toby some hot chocolate.
> > >     participatingAgents = Toby, daddy
> > >     appraiser = Toby
> > >
> > > Which parameter distinguishes between:
> > >
> > >   How does Toby imagine Toby feels about receiving hot chocolate?
> > >     (or simply "How does Toby feel about receiving hot chocolate?")
> > >
> > >   How does Toby imagine daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?
> >
> > Just to be sure, you want a param to distinguish between...
> >
> > (a) How does Toby feel about receiving hot chocolate?
> >
> > ..and...
> >
> > (b) How does Toby imagine daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?
>
> Yes.

Darn.  I'm out of time.  I've got to get to bed and/or quickly scan
other email msgs for urgent issues.  Lets keep after me to respond
to the below soon.

>
> I meant "How does Toby imagine Toby" as an artifical expansion caused
> by parameterization, NOT as Toby's self-reflection about his own
> opinion.
>
> > > In other words, who is the appraiser trying to mindread?
> > > Can we call this parameter "point of view" or do you have
> > > a better idea?
> >
> > I like the name mindreader.  For the sake of keeping things simple
> > for the beginning, the mindreader should usually *not* be a
> > participatingAgents.  When the KM model is running, then IT is the
> > mindreader.  When Joe Blow is surfing the internet filling out
> > our survey, then Joe Blow is the mindreader.
> >
> > But, okay, fine, in (b), Toby is the mindreader and Daddy is the
> > appraiser.  In (a), I am the mindreader when I infer that Toby is
> > mad as hell.
>
> Well, almost.
>
> I still want to add another parameter.  To lessen your reluctance, I
> want to mention that this is the last contextual parameter I wish to
> add.  I do not propose yet more repetitions of "How does KM imagine
> Toby imagine daddy imagine Toby imagine ..."  That is too much!  But I
> do want one more parameter.
>
> Please indulge me.  What can we call this parameter?
>
> Perhaps the problem with POINT-OF-VIEW is that it suggests the same
> concept as APPRAISING-AGENT.  How about OPINER or OPINARI?  If OPINER
> then I suppose:
>
> > (a) How does Toby imagine Toby feels about receiving hot chocolate?
>
> OPINER = Toby
> APPRAISING-AGENT = Toby
>
> > (b) How does Toby imagine daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?
>
> OPINER = Toby
> APPRAISING-AGENT = daddy
>
> How does that sound?
>
> As soon as we finalize this parameter then I'm going to email the
> revised "big summary" which I am amassing.
>
> + + +
>
> To review: the mindreader (your definition, above) can be Toby or KM
> or a random web surfer.  At least we have an agreed-upon definition
> for "mindreader."  ++Progress
>
> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://openheartlogic.org
>