The idea of mapping schemas onto each other is v. fundamental to the general image schema approach to cognition and action of cog. embodied sci. This is esp. evident in the whole idea of metaphors wh. is of extreme (and IMO somewhat excessive) importance to the field. Computers as we have much discussed aren’t yet capable of holistic mapping – though I think a way round can be found for robots.
The other aspect of schemas that is vital is that they are fluid,loose outlines – and not just outlines of objects, but of actions and potential courses of actions – and therefore a fundamental contradiction and challenge to the idea of algorithmic, precisely first-to-last-step preplanned courses of action. *However* I doubt that anyone in the field has really thought this through – or they wouldn’t be so attracted to computational instantiations.. I welcome comments from all here. From: Jim Bromer Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:43 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] Image schemas control all forms of action [Lakoff replies] 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 Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:54 PM To: AGI Cc: AGI 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 Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:11 PM To: Mike Tintner 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 | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
