Mike said: My impression is that these attempts are always misguided ... – for they do IMO “betray” or certainly distort the guiding image schema inspiration – and the idea of mapping schemas onto each other. (I’d like to discuss this with him/them – and may use your reply as an opportunity).
Do you mean that the idea of mapping schema onto each other is a distortion of "the guiding image schema inspiration," or do you mean that the idea of mapping schema onto each other is a part of the inspiration? Because the "mapping" of schema onto each other is a mapping of a computational idea onto a hypothesis about the biological process of mind, whereas the guiding inspiration of using image is more of a process derived from physical neural biology. Jim Bromer On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben, > > Did you read it in the proper order, so to speak (hard to do from the > layout)? i.e. starting with *my* post and his reply? > > I don’t think there’s any doubt that he is replying to, and confirming my > position – wh. is a general point about how the brain works, and how image > schemas inform and control many different kinds of action, incl. cognition > and representation. > > It’s true that at almost every point, Lakoff and his many > followers/colleagues seek to find computational instantiations of their > ideas. > > My impression is that these attempts are always misguided – and invite the > kind of response you have made, – for they do IMO “betray” or certainly > distort the guiding image schema inspiration – and the idea of mapping > schemas onto each other. (I’d like to discuss this with him/them – and may > use your reply as an opportunity). > > But I don’t think there can be any doubt that Lakoff & co do see image > schemas as central as I have outlined (and don’t see them as mathematical) > – and that while they may seek to be computational, their primary loyalty > is to the biological and science. > > *From:* Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 11:54 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Cc:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Image schemas control all forms of action [Lakoff > replies] > > Mike, > > Lakoff's reply to you is not about "image schema" but rather about > "process schema" , specifically naranyan's x-schema > * > * > *naranyan's *x-*schema* are "a graph-based, token-passing formalism based > on stochastic Petri nets" > > > http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~snarayan/CFN-NCPW04.pdf > > These x-schema are an abstract mathematical formalism, and not > intrinsically "imagistic" > > Naranyan uses x-schema as a bridge btw language, action, perception and > reasoning -- much as opencog uses its atomspace model in this role > > Ben G > > -- > Ben Goertzel > http://goertzel.org > ### Sent from my mobile; plz forgive any typos or excessive concision ... > > On 24 Jul, 2012, at 5:17 AM, "Mike Tintner" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > *From:* George Lakoff <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 10:11 PM > *To:* Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Cogling-L] The scope of image schemas > > Narayanan's X-schemas (or process schemas) characterize all events and > actions and actually control physical actions. So you're right about that. > We are now working on entity schemas, but we're not there yet. > > George > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Mike Tintner > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Lakoff:The idea behind image metaphors is simple. Images are structured >> by image >> schemas. A given image has multiple image schemas linked via neural >> binding >> to form a composite image schema ? or more than one. Metaphors map one >> image to another by mapping the source image schemas to the identical >> image >> schemas in the target >> >> George, >> >> Your exposition was v. useful. Can you/should you not extend the scope of >> image schemas? They structure presumably under >> >> *Images* : both >> >> *Verbal Images* & >> *Graphic/Photographic/Sensory Images*. >> >> and not just word images but : >> >> *Words/Language/Concepts" - period; *all words* are structured by image >> schemas, no? >> >> And from that one can one go on to argue - no? - that they structure >> >> *Moves/Movement* - period - that, for example, our reaching for a cup is >> structured by a schema. >> >> After all, language is used principally to structure actions: "Hand me >> that cup" - "Go to the other room". It makes sense that image schemas >> should structure not just verbally-mediated action, but all action, however >> mediated. The same mirror neurons that respond to (image-schema-structured) >> verbal accounts of action, also respond when just watching direct sensory >> images of agents executing those actions. >> >> Concepts/schemas arguably structure all the actions of living creatures. >> >> Comments? >> >> P.S. Personally, I think it's helpful to think of image schemas as >> "[loose] outlines" - esp. in connection with actions. Comments? >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
