It's not just attributes, but relationships, as well. This is especially true when dealing with a multiple-role metaphor, where each object in a set of interacting objects is mapped to one of another st of objects.
I think you hit pretty close to the mark with your attribute transference rule, but I think it's more of a suggestion to be examined and potentially incorporated than a hard assertion. There's also the consideration that it's possible to use multiple projections (or mapping of parts) to relate two concepts when determining their similarity, which can lead to entirely different metaphors connecting the same two concepts. Perhaps it's difficult to identify the projections that make things sufficiently similar, which would explain why being asked to identify what a fog and a cat have in common is difficult to answer until someone spoon feeds you an effective projection, such as the style of movement. I'm sure everyone has experienced the spreading effect of metaphors. Once one concept has been mapped to another, the first's neighbors are easily mapped to the second's. If dating is fishing, dates become fishes and charms become lures, etc. This tells me that the key to a good metaphor is a comparable set of structures related to each other in similar ways for both the source and the target. If I were to do this in a semantic net, I'd be looking for subgraphs which are isomorphic. Finding extensions of such a subgraph that also can be mapped isomorphically without altering the original mapping ought to be a much easier operation than finding the initial mapping. Elements in the source that are excluded from the isomorphic mapping would provide hints as to what candidates ought to be considered for addition to the sink. -- Sent from my Palm Pre On Oct 21, 2012 8:22 PM, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: Oops, should be Similar(<source>, <target>) , hence Similar(Cat, Fog). From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [agi] Similar(Fog, Cat) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:07:27 -0700 Bipin Indurkhya in his book Metaphor and Cognition stated that the purpose of metaphor is to transfer attributes from a source concept to a target concept. Before reading any further, do this thought experiment. Name as many relationships as you can between between the fog and a housecat? Think for a moment before reading the next paragraph... ........... Indurkhya's classic example "The fog came in on little cat feet, waited awhile, then moved on" creates a new concept in one's mind "fog-as-cat" and with this new relationship facilitates the transfer of attributes pertaining to a cat, to the the concept of fog. Now there are a whole host of relationships you can transfer between the two concepts which did not exist before. There is probably a mental inference rule that says IF Similar(x, y) and Attribute(x, a) then THEN assert Attribute(y, a) Perhaps. ~PM.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Confidential - This message is meant solely for the intended recipient. Please do not copy or forward this message without the consent of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please delete the message and notify the sender. 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
