Humans tend to think they do argument well - even those failed by schools. It's interesting most people have little clue what argument itself is about. Few get very far when asked to explain how they argue and the 'smarter' fall back on some simple rhetoric training they had on fallacies and the like. Argumentation is a highly interdisciplinary field with links to psychology, linguistics, philosophy, legal theory, and formal logic. Since the advent of the computer age, formal models of argument have been materialized in different systems that implement — or at least support — creation, evaluation, and judgement of arguments. Dung's idea of evaluating arguments on an abstract level by taking only their inter-relationships into account, not only has been shown to underlie many of the earlier approaches for argumentation, but also uniformly captures several non-monotonic logics. This located Argumentation as a sub-discipline of Artificial Intelligence. .
One particular feature of abstract argumentation frameworks is their simple structure. In fact, abstract argumentation frameworks are just directed graphs where vertices play the role of arguments and edges indicate a certain conflict between the two connected arguments. These argumentation frameworks are usually derived during an instantiation process where structured arguments are investigated with respect to their ability to contradict other such arguments; the actual notion of “contradicting” can be instantiated in many different forms. Having generated the framework in such a way, the process of “conflict-resolution”, i.e., the search for jointly acceptable sets of arguments, is then delegated to semantics which operate on the abstract level. Thus, semantics for argumentation frameworks have also been referred to as calculi of opposition. Stripping our argument for easier translation is not the way we are going in our chats with machines and with humans still leaves problems with the knowledge and dispositions of the recipients - including whether they will try at all, especially if a world-view they are comfortable with is challenged. On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:22:19 AM UTC, archytas wrote: > > Most human communication probably isn't directly conscious, so maybe > there's some unconscious hope. Something of what Gabby said on 'wobbly' > goes on in the machines. Fuzzy Description Logics (DLs) can be used to > represent and reason with vague knowledge. This family of logical > formalisms is very diverse, each member being characterized by a specific > choice of constructors,axioms, and triangular norms, which are used to > specify the semantics.They form the base language for many large-scale > knowledge bases, like Snomed CT and the Gene Ontology, but their largest > success to date is the language OWL as the standard ontology language for > the Semantic Web. DLs essentially allow to state relations between > concepts, which represent subsets of a specific domain containing exactly > those domain elements that share certain properties. Roles correspond to > binary relations that allow to state connections between concepts. > In their classical form, however, DLs are not well-suited for representing > and reasoning with the vagueness and imprecision that are endemic to many > knowledge domains, e.g. in the bio-medical fields. One of the most common > symptoms of diseases is the presence of fever, which is characterized by a > high body > temperature. Clearly, it is not possible to* precisely* distinguish high > body temperatures from non-high body temperatures. In order to > appropriately represent this knowledge, it is necessary to use a formalism > capable of handling imprecision. Fuzzy variants of DLs have been introduced > as a means of handling imprecise > terminological knowledge. This is achieved by interpreting concepts as > fuzzy sets. In a nutshell, a fuzzy set associates with every element of the > universe a value from the interval [0, 1], which expresses its degree of > membership to the set. This makes it possible to express, e.g. that 38◦C is > a high body temperature to > degree 0.7, while 39◦C belongs to the same concept with degree 1. > > Of course, one hardly puts this kind of linguistic and mathematical effort > in with humans. One cannot reliably determine whether they are switched on > or merely programmed like an attack dog with a spleen problem. I can see > the point in translation for the machine, but humans are so stupid they > choose the wrong end of the stick, even when correctly marked. > > > The ability to manage vague and imprecise knowledge is a desired feature > of intelligent systems to be used in the biological and medical domains, > among many others.Studying the complexity of reasoning with different fuzzy > DLs allows us to discern which of these may be suitable formalisms for > implementing a fuzzy knowledge representation and reasoning system. Anyone > who thinks the machines aren't as smart as us should compare argument here > with the chats one can have with a modern database. > > http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/papers/2015/BoDP-AI15.pdf > > > On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 4:12:37 AM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: >> >> Yes, I'm sure they eventually will. The Singularity and all that. I >> wonder if we'll achieve the same level of communication growth. >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:24 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Quatsch is rather tame and an interesting example in your terms Chris. >>> I heard Schmarrn more often (Austria). Inflexion, tone and the rest would >>> be key - just as rubbish could be a nice response to a fairy tale story or >>> rather nasty as from a finger-wagging harridan teacher. Machines can >>> interpret these these things over time. >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:08:56 PM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>>> >>>> Brilliant! I'll be using that from now on. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know, but I would translate it as "Quatsch". Equally wobbly >>>>> sound. :) >>>>> >>>>> 2015-03-01 20:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Ah, but I never belittled your language competence, Gabby! What I >>>>>> said in American English was that I wondered sometimes if I missed an >>>>>> intended meaning in the translation. And, inputting my American English >>>>>> into Google Translated German English was a perfect example of that; >>>>>> little >>>>>> of my intended meaning was originally clear to German speakers I reckon, >>>>>> and translating back to American English renders it not much more than >>>>>> gibberish. >>>>>> >>>>>> What does gibberish translate to in German? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Gabby <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Heyo Chrissy, my eternal savior! I appreciate very much your attempt >>>>>>> at saving whatever was never there. The ring is just a parable, but I >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> soon have gone full circle again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And hey, I'd rather you accused me of foul language than belittling >>>>>>> my language competence! Your German English sounds just like your >>>>>>> American >>>>>>> English by the way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I find it noticeable how you come to think that the long gone >>>>>>> Francis might be of help while I perceive others, who are presently >>>>>>> active >>>>>>> in this interpretations club, who are doing a much better job. Anyways. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I joined this group because of the topic keywords and the writing >>>>>>> "Minds Eye", which in my eyes allowed for singular as well as plural >>>>>>> interpretations due to the "oral markers". The vast majority of active >>>>>>> posters was Americans, which I got to know as loud, dominant, >>>>>>> aggressive. >>>>>>> And their strategically silent, submissive, passive-aggressive >>>>>>> counterparts >>>>>>> of course. My aim was to not get worked up anymore by what I perceive >>>>>>> here, >>>>>>> which I haven't fully managed to reach yet. But I have learned so much >>>>>>> already about the power of manipulation and distraction and emotional >>>>>>> dependencies in what you'd think was banal online chatting ... amazing! >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> will still write up a little lessons learned micro article on the >>>>>>> difference between the American and the German understanding of God and >>>>>>> post it here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my opinion this place is not dead because Neil has adopted it as >>>>>>> his personal writing playground, which no one objects to. That's fine >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> me and tells me I'm late with my project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greetings once more across the Atlantic! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 01:56:27 UTC+1 schrieb Chris Jenkins: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, >>>>>>>> war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere >>>>>>>> Emotionen? >>>>>>>> Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich >>>>>>>> vorstellen, >>>>>>>> wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig >>>>>>>> brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, >>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>> sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte >>>>>>>> verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; >>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>> sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer >>>>>>>> anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu >>>>>>>> kommunizieren? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben >>>>>>>> Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die so >>>>>>>> viel >>>>>>>> Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache >>>>>>>> verbracht >>>>>>>> hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit sie >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, >>>>>>>> ob ich >>>>>>>> einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden >>>>>>>> meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>> topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
