heartlogic-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing


From: William L. Jarrold
Subject: [Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:57:21 -0600 (CST)


On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 08:29:23PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > Sorry, I realize you really want a response on something.  I'm gonna
> > guess this is what you want a response on.
>
> You guessed it.  ;-)

Good.

>
> > I mean we can have this event:
> >
> > Daddy gives Hot Coco to Toby.
> >
> > We can ask :
> >
> > 1) How does Daddy appraise this?
> > 2) How does Toby appraise this?
> >
> > 3) What would X predict (mindread) the answer to 1 or 2?
> >
> > X can equal a third party, Daddy or Toby.
> >
> > Am I getting warmer?
>
> Yes, almost.  Let's double check with more examples.  Perhaps this is
> a hassel, but this is the _last_ parameter which I want to add.
>
> > Maybe you can help me by generating enough examples to motivate all three
> > of APPRAISING-AGENT, OPINER, and POINT-OF-VIEW.
>
> OK, I'm going to review the parameters we have identified so far.  I
> am also attaching a longer document which shows most of our detailed
> discussion up to this point.
>
> PARTICIPATING-AGENTS: Associated with each appraisal are two
> intentional agents.

Not exactly.  I think of participatingAgents as a binary predicate
that maps between an event and an agent that participates in that
event....Some events require at least two participant agents.  E.g.
giving requires a giver and a receiver.  But
AffectivelyAppraisingAnEvent requires only one agent, not two.

>
> APPRAISING-AGENT: Who is appraising the situation?  An appraisal is
> the appraising-agent's opinion about or construal of the situation
> cue.

Pretty much.  I'd prefer that the second agent read "An appraisal is the
appraisaing agents affective construal of some situation."

>
> MINDREADER: Who is mindreading the appraisal?  This may be a third
> party, a computer model (KM or otherwise), Daddy, or Toby.

Right.

>
> Now I'm going to present my proposal as best I can.  After that, there
> are some parity checks to see whether you have understood it properly.
>
> > ...sorry, I'm pressed for time.  I read this just now like 4 times and
> > I feel that something is missing.  I feel like I've almost got what you
> > are pushing for but not quite.  Maybe what I don't see is how
> > POINT-OF-VIEW is different than APPRAISING-AGENT.
>
> My proposal for adding one more parameter is to _split_
> APPRAISING-AGENT into two parameters: OPINER and POINT-OF-VIEW.

Hmm.  Okay, I've read your note a few times.  It feels clearer.
However, I'm embarrased to say that I strongly desire a name change.
It seems to me that what we want to do is keep #$appraisingAgent and
#$mindreader and add a new binary predicate, #$metaMindReader.

Also, any time you split a concept (e.g. you want to
split #$appraisingAgent into #$opiner and #$pointOfView) you should
define the terms that are created by the split (e.g. #$opiner and
#$pointOfView).  I am not exactly sure how you would define them.

>
> Given the situation cue:
>
>   Daddy gives Hot Coco to Toby.
>
>   PARTICIPATING-AGENTS = Daddy, Toby

Right, both Daddy and Toby participate in #$GivingEvent001.  Daddy is
the #$giver, Toby is the #$receiver.  Sorry, I'm invoking psuedo CycL.

>
> Here are the possible appraisals (using the new parameter scheme):
>
> 1. OPINER        = Daddy
>    POINT-OF-VIEW = Daddy
>    English = How does Daddy feel about giving Hot Coco to Toby?

I prefer ...

#$appraisingAgent = Daddy
#$mindreader = Daddy

...my guess is that your #$pointOfView refers to my #$appraisingAgent and
that your opiner refers to #$mindreader.

>
> 2. OPINER        = Daddy
>    POINT-OF-VIEW = Toby
>    English = How does Daddy imagine that Toby feels about Daddy
>              giving Hot Coco to Toby?

I prefer...

#$appraisingAgent = Toby
#$mindreader = Daddy.

>
> 3. OPINER        = Toby
>    POINT-OF-VIEW = Toby
>    English = How does Toby feel about receiving Hot Coco from Daddy?

#$appraisingAgent = Toby
#$mindreader = Toby

>
> 4. OPINER        = Toby
>    POINT-OF-VIEW = Daddy
>    English = How does Toby imagine Daddy feels about giving Hot Coco
>              to Toby?

#$appraisingAgent = Daddy
#$mindreader = Toby

>
> OK, now for some parity checks.
>
> Parity check: Before we split APPRAISING-AGENT into OPINER and
> POINT-OF-VIEW, we only have appraisals #1 and #3 where the OPINER and
> POINT-OF-VIEW refer to the same PARTICIPATING-AGENT.
>
> Parity check: The MINDREADER parameter is unchanged.
>
>   If the appraisal is #3 and MINDREADER = KM then we still ask,
>   "Mr. Computer Model, how does Toby feel about receiving Hot Coco from
>   Daddy?"

For Case #3 I'd say...

#$appraisingAgent = Toby
#$mindreader = Toby
#$metaMindReader = KM

>
>   If the appraisal is #4 and MINDREADER = WLJ then we still ask, "WLJ,
>   how does Toby imagine Daddy feels about giving Hot Coco to Toby?"
>

The immediately above would be represented like so...

#$appraisingAgent = Daddy
#$mindreader = Toby
#$metaMindreader = WLJ

> Parity check: We no longer have a parameter APPRAISING-AGENT.
>
> Parity check: For full compatibility with your dissertation, we
> make the following substitution:
>
> Change
>
>   APPRAISING-AGENT = X
>
> to
>
>   OPINER = X
>   POINT-OF-VIEW = X
>
> Make sense?
>
> Hopefully you have grasped the proposal now.  If you prefer a
> different terminology than OPINER / POINT-OF-VIEW then this is a good
> time to change.
>

So, I guess I understand where you are wanting to go and I have
made my point about a name change.

I'll add this.  Mindreading is an event too, just like appraising it.
Sometimes the object of a mindread is an appraisal. Other times, the
object of the mindread is a mindread of an appraisal.  Thus, if we go
this root the predicate #$metaMindReader will be superfluous.  To refer
to a meta-mindreader, we need just create a mindread of a mindread event.
I could spell this out if you'd like.  The predicate #$metaMindReader will
paint us in to a corner.  For example, if we have two people mind reading
about "How does Toby imagine Daddy feels about giving Hot Coco to
Toby?" then we'd be better off by having two events for each of their
meta-mindreads rather than one slotized thing.  WHy?  Well, if we go
with one slotized thing, i.e. metaMindreader, then how will we
correctly associate the two resultant distinct metamindreads with the
appropriate metamindreaders.  I've skipped over lotsa stuff here and
thus have not really parity checked.  Maybe I'll go slower in the next
round.

So, in sum, I think I just want slots that map like so...

#$participatingAgents: Event X Agent

#$appraisingAgent: AppraisalEvent X Agent

#$mindreader: MindreadingEvent X Agent

#$giver: GivingEvent X Agent.
#$receiver: GivingEvent X Agent.

We'll need lots of other slots to connect MindreadingEvents to
AppraisalEvents and so on.

Then again, maybe I am missing something about where you are wanting to go
with this.

Bill

> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://openheartlogic.org
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]