Re: [PEIRCE-L] Role of Copula in the logic of Grammars. Re: Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[Mike Bergman]

Hi Jerry,

Forgive me for saying this, but I am not really grokking your points. 
First, I see no references in your comment to Peirce references or 
citations to support any of your points. Second, I am not really 
understanding your specific points; see below:



Mike, List


On Dec 5, 2023, at 1:51 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:



In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers 
on the role of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, 
have you addressed the inferences between predicate logics and the 
grammar of copulated sentences (syllogisms)?


No, I have not studied this topic. I do speculate some on Peirce and 
grammars and semantic parsing in Chap 16, but without specific 
reference to the copula. I'd welcome hearing whatever thoughts you 
have on this topic.



Symbolic logic is an economic tool.  My concerns are scientific logics 
expressed in various scientific notations that are not easily 
translated into bits and bytes..
I do not think symbolic logic is a subset of economics or pragmatism. I 
do not understand the equating of symbolic logics with scientific 
logics; the latter seem to me a subset with mathematics as an 
intermediary. The most diffuse symbolic logic of them all, human 
language, is now being captured to some remarkably 'intelligent' degrees 
by large language models (LLMs), which are certainly being translated 
into bits and bytes and back again to human languages. There are issues 
and errors, for sure, in what the state of the art is, but it is pretty 
impressive nonetheless.


Briefly, the developments  of symbolic logics through the inventions 
of logical constants has nearly eliminated the possibility of 
expressing the fine-structures of scientific discourse. 
OK, the quantum is most difficult conceptually, but what fine-structures 
are you specifically referencing?
The difficulty of illating between complex grammatical structures, 
such as though commonly used in molecular biology and precision 
medicine is immense. 
Hmmm. This sounds, forgive me, like a bit of a word soup. Why illation? 
What are the unique grammatical structures of molecular biology and 
precision medicine? I need much more guidance here as to what points you 
are making.
The transactional foundations of a copulated “subject-subject” 
sentences is extra-ordinarily difficult to express in predicate logic.
Wow. This one goes over my head by literally thousands of feet. What is 
your point?



Finally, the challenges related to ascribing attributes of systems 
(noun properties) rather than merely descriptions further limit the 
utility of the current intellectual mess known as “symbolic logic”.


Well, here, too, forgive me for not getting your point. In my own 
symbolic system, KBpedia, we emphasize as properties both attributes, 
intensive and extensive, and external relations, which we do relate 
specifically to Peirce. Annotations and associations are nearly 
first-class citizens as well.


Also, you seem to have a bone to pick with 'symbolic logic'. What 
proponent and which logic are you thinking of in particular?


My overall sense is that this first conversation is really a skew line 
in space. I do not yet understand what you are trying to say. I 
certainly have no "glimpse at the meanings CSP intended" about any of 
this. Sorry! Maybe try again?!?


Thanks.

Best, Mike



[Some readers here will recall my posts on the axiological mathematics 
of the atomic number system which in grounded in the scientific S-V-P 
sentences. ]


Hopefully, these terse sentences will give you a glimpse at the 
meanings CSP intended in his scientifically-grounded texts on multiple 
graph theories.


Cheers
Jerry


--
__

Michael K. Bergman
319.621.5225
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] Role of Copula in the logic of Grammars. Re: Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Mike, List

> On Dec 5, 2023, at 1:51 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers on the 
>> role of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, have you 
>> addressed the inferences between predicate logics and the grammar of 
>> copulated sentences (syllogisms)?
> No, I have not studied this topic. I do speculate some on Peirce and grammars 
> and semantic parsing in Chap 16, but without specific reference to the 
> copula. I'd welcome hearing whatever thoughts you have on this topic.
> 
> 

Symbolic logic is an economic tool.  My concerns are scientific logics 
expressed in various scientific notations that are not easily translated into 
bits and bytes..

Briefly, the developments  of symbolic logics through the inventions of logical 
constants has nearly eliminated the possibility of expressing the 
fine-structures of scientific discourse.  The difficulty of illating between 
complex grammatical structures, such as though commonly used in molecular 
biology and precision medicine is immense. The transactional foundations of a 
copulated “subject-subject” sentences is extra-ordinarily difficult to express 
in predicate logic.  

Finally, the challenges related to ascribing attributes of systems (noun 
properties) rather than merely descriptions further limit the utility of the 
current intellectual mess known as “symbolic logic”.  

[Some readers here will recall my posts on the axiological mathematics of the 
atomic number system which in grounded in the scientific S-V-P sentences. ]

Hopefully, these terse sentences will give you a glimpse at the meanings CSP 
intended in his scientifically-grounded texts on multiple graph theories.  

Cheers
Jerry _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [ontolog-forum] RE: Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[Mike Bergman]

Hi John,

I'd like that. Kingsley and I have had a couple of colloquys over the 
years, and I think those provided some insight and entertainment and we 
both enjoyed engaging in them, as well as other participants that joined in.


When you want to pull up this thread again, let's try to give it an 
honest effort at raising and discussing Peircean points with regard to 
ontologies and knowledge representation. (I know there is much, much 
else, that we can discuss about Peirce, but I deem these to be the most 
productive overlaps between our experiences and viewpoints.)


 I would also not certainly avoid Peirce's existential graphs, for 
which I have studied naught while knowing they are a powerful key into 
his thinking, because I know you have particularly focused and are 
expert on that.)


Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Mike

On 12/5/2023 12:20 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Mike,

There are many important issues about Peirce's writings and their 
implications that require further discussion.  From my browsing, I can 
see that we have emphasized different points.  They're compatible, but 
the differences are worth discussing.


I certainly agree about the importance of Peirce's writings for 
current issues.  I have attended and participated in a several APA 
meetings, and it's sad that nobody outside of Peirce sessions cites 
him for anything.  Other sessions constantly cite Frege, Russel, 
Carnap, and Quine on topics for which Peirce's writings are far more 
 relevant to 21st C problems.


Right now, I have a tight deadline for an article that should have 
been finished months ago, and many people will be traveling for the 
holidays.  So further discussions would be a good theme for the new year.


John


*From*: "Mike Bergman" 

Hi John,

Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the 
prior thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had 
inquired as to what my theoretical interest was in ChatGPT prompt 
engineering for possible use in assistance in ontology mapping. I try 
not to use these fora for self-promotion, but I welcomed the question 
nonetheless. In that regard, I also 'hijacked' the thread a bit. 
Besides being fallible, an essential point repeatedly emphasized by 
Peirce, we are all hypocritical at times. Color me guilty.


I would welcome discussing Peirce and KR topics with you should you 
have criticisms or observations based on my book (or elsewise). As a 
Peirce scholar, I hope you agree with me that Peirce is perhaps the 
philosopher/logician/mathematician /par excellence/ on this very 
topic. I think many on this forum, and the Peirce forum that I have 
added to this list, would benefit from learning more about his cogent 
insights.


Best, Mike

[1] https://www.mkbergman.com/a-knowledge-representation-practionary/

On 12/4/2023 5:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Mike,

I apologize for not seeing the original note about your book.  I 
downloaded a copy, which is very interesting indeed.   I have only 
had a chance to browse through it.  But from what I've read so far, 
it appears to be an excellent overview of Peirce's theories and 
strong evidence of their importance for knowledge representation 
theory and practice.  I would recommend it for Ontolog subscribers as 
a presentation of Peirce's theories of logic and ontology and their 
use as a foundation for knowledge systems and applications.


There are topics and comments that I would quibble about.  For 
example, Peirce's existential graphs have the full expressive power 
of the ISO standard for Common Logic, and they are much clearer, 
simpler, and more powerful than OWL2.    But anybody who read or 
adopted the methods in your book could extend them to Common Logic.


As you said,  my remarks below "have nothing to do with the topics 
and discussion of this thread" -- as you wrote in the note I had not 
seen seen.  Please note that your book has nothing to do with quantum 
mechanics (the subject line).  I was responding to the following 
point by Mike Denny:  "But is comparing quantum mechanics to 
pointillism indeed a clever idea?  Perhaps the analogy is more 
misleading than helpful."


GPT had found an article with just one sentence about that topic, and 
it did not cite the original source.  In the original, the person who 
made that comparison was a physicist who knew perfectly well that it 
was just a one-line comment that had very little justification in a 
deeper theoretical sense.  But GPT made it sound like a summary of a 
serious theory.   Since GPT did not cite the source, there was no way 
of knowing (1) who said it first, (2) what was the context, (3) what 
was the scientific justification for it,  and most importantly (4) 
how could the reader find the original source and check those points?


Those are very serious flaws of GPT.  I believe that my response to 
Mike D (which you quoted below) was justified.  

[PEIRCE-L] Project Q* -- enabling GPT to call subroutines

[John F Sowa]

For months, I have been criticizing LLM technology for ignoring the 60+ years 
of developments in AI and computer science.

But finally, they can now call a subroutine to do elementary arithmetic.  That 
might not sound like much, but it opens the door to EVERYTHING.  It means that 
LLMs can now invoke a subroutine that can do anything and everything that any 
computer program has been able to do for over 70 years.

Previous applications could combine LLMs with other software by putting a 
conventional program in charge and call LLM-based systems as a subroutine.  
That is still possible with Q* systems.  But the option of allowing LLMs 
themselves to call external subroutines provides greater flexibility.  See 
below for excerpts from 
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/what-is-project-q/

However, there are still some things left to criticize and more work to be done 
before humans become obsolete.

John
___

What is Project Q*?

Before moving forward, it should be noted that all the details about Project Q* 
— including its existence — comes from some fresh reports following the drama 
around Altman’s firing.  Reporters at Reuters said on November 22 that it had 
been given the information by “two people familiar with the matter,” providing 
a peek behind the curtain of what was happening internally in the weeks leading 
up to the firing.

According to the article, Project Q* was a new model that excelled in learning 
and performing mathematics. It was still reportedly only at the level of 
solving grade-school mathematics, but as a beginning point, it looked promising 
for demonstrating previously unseen intelligence from the researchers involved.

Seems harmless enough, right?  Well, not so fast. The existence of Q* was 
reportedly scary enough to prompt several staff researchers to write a letter 
to the board to raise the alarm about the project, claiming it could “threaten 
humanity.”

On the other hand, other attempts at explaining Q* aren’t quite as novel — and 
certainly aren’t so earth-shattering. The Chief AI scientist at Meta, Yann 
LeCun, tweeted that Q* has to do with replacing “auto-regressive token 
prediction with planning” as a way of improving LLM (large language model) 
reliability. LeCun says all of OpenAI’s competitors have been working on it, 
and that OpenAI made a specific hire to address this problem.

[Note by JFS:  "auto-regressive token prediction" is jargon for what LLMs do by 
themselves.  Planning is an example of GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned AI).  The Q* 
breakthrough allows LLMs to call GOFAI subroutines.  That might not sound like 
much, but it's the critical innovation that enables integration of old and new 
AI methods.]

One of the main challenges to improve LLM reliability is to replace 
Auto-Regressive token prediction with planning. Pretty much every top lab 
(FAIR, DeepMind, OpenAI etc) is working on that and some have already 
published… — Yann LeCun (@ylecun) November 24, 2023

[JFS:  The verb 'replace' is inaccurate.  The original methods for using LLMs 
are still available.  A better term is 'integrate'.]

LeCun’s point doesn’t seem to be that such a development isn’t important — but 
that it’s not some unknown development that no other AI researchers aren’t 
currently discussing. Then again, in the replies to this tweet, LeCun is 
dismissive of Altman, saying he has a “long history of self-delusion” and 
suggests that the reports around Q* don’t convince him that a significant 
advancement in the problem of planning in learned models has been made.

[JFS:  In one sense, that's true, since integration was possible with the older 
methods.  But the Q* options enable a smoother and more flexible integration of 
LLMs with the methods of GOFAI and other branches of computer science.]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[Mike Bergman]

Hi Jerry,

Please see inline below.

On 12/5/2023 1:18 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:

Hi Mike:

Thank you very very much for posting the links to the sections of your 
book.

You are welcome.


I enjoyed the first sections and will explore it further as time permits.
My initial comment is that Peirce’s linkable to natural philosophy are 
submerged.
I agree. Since well before publication of the book I have been 
separately researching Peirce's natural philosophy in relation to 
current science and evolution. For the past five years my nearly 
full-time occupation has been drafting a book on that very topic. My 
best guess is that book will come out sometime in 2025. You probably 
will not be hearing any further from me on that topic until then.


In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers on 
the role of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, have 
you addressed the inferences between predicate logics and the grammar 
of copulated sentences (syllogisms)?


No, I have not studied this topic. I do speculate some on Peirce and 
grammars and semantic parsing in Chap 16, but without specific reference 
to the copula. I'd welcome hearing whatever thoughts you have on this topic.


Thanks!

Best, Mike




Cheers

Jerry




On Dec 4, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:

Hi John,

Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the 
prior thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had 
inquired as to what my theoretical interest was in ChatGPT prompt 
engineering for possible use in assistance in ontology mapping. I try 
not to use these fora for self-promotion, but I welcomed the question 
nonetheless. In that regard, I also 'hijacked' the thread a bit. 
Besides being fallible, an essential point repeatedly emphasized by 
Peirce, we are all hypocritical at times. Color me guilty.


I would welcome discussing Peirce and KR topics with you should you 
have criticisms or observations based on my book (or elsewise). As a 
Peirce scholar, I hope you agree with me that Peirce is perhaps the 
philosopher/logician/mathematician /par excellence/ on this very 
topic. I think many on this forum, and the Peirce forum that I have 
added to this list, would benefit from learning more about his cogent 
insights.


Best, Mike

[1] https://www.mkbergman.com/a-knowledge-representation-practionary/

On 12/4/2023 5:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Mike,

I apologize for not seeing the original note about your book.  I 
downloaded a copy, which is very interesting indeed.   I have only 
had a chance to browse through it.  But from what I've read so far, 
it appears to be an excellent overview of Peirce's theories and 
strong evidence of their importance for knowledge representation 
theory and practice.  I would recommend it for Ontolog subscribers 
as a presentation of Peirce's theories of logic and ontology and 
their use as a foundation for knowledge systems and applications.


There are topics and comments that I would quibble about.  For 
example, Peirce's existential graphs have the full expressive power 
of the ISO standard for Common Logic, and they are much clearer, 
simpler, and more powerful than OWL2.    But anybody who read or 
adopted the methods in your book could extend them to Common Logic.


As you said,  my remarks below "have nothing to do with the topics 
and discussion of this thread" -- as you wrote in the note I had not 
seen seen.  Please note that your book has nothing to do with 
quantum mechanics (the subject line).  I was responding to the 
following point by Mike Denny:  "But is comparing quantum mechanics 
to pointillism indeed a clever idea?  Perhaps the analogy is more 
misleading than helpful."


GPT had found an article with just one sentence about that topic, 
and it did not cite the original source.  In the original, the 
person who made that comparison was a physicist who knew perfectly 
well that it was just a one-line comment that had very little 
justification in a deeper theoretical sense.  But GPT made it sound 
like a summary of a serious theory.   Since GPT did not cite the 
source, there was no way of knowing (1) who said it first, (2) what 
was the context, (3) what was the scientific justification for it, 
 and most importantly (4) how could the reader find the original 
source and check those points?


Those are very serious flaws of GPT.  I believe that my response to 
Mike D (which you quoted below) was justified.   People who 
understand the limitations of GPT can use it effectively -- as you 
do.   But the great majority of people (of all ages and backgrounds) 
include a huge number who do not understand its limitations.  For 
them, it can be highly misleading -- even to the danger point, if 
taken seriously.


John


*From*: "Mike Bergman" 

Hi John,

My god, John, your lack of self-introspection on my response to you 
is astounding. You respond:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Hi Mike:

Thank you very very much for posting the links to the sections of your book.

I enjoyed the first sections and will explore it further as time permits. 
My initial comment is that Peirce’s linkable to natural philosophy are 
submerged.

In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers on the role 
of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, have you addressed the 
inferences between predicate logics and the grammar of copulated sentences 
(syllogisms)?


Cheers

Jerry



> On Dec 4, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the prior 
> thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had inquired as to 
> what my theoretical interest was in ChatGPT prompt engineering for possible 
> use in assistance in ontology mapping. I try not to use these fora for 
> self-promotion, but I welcomed the question nonetheless. In that regard, I 
> also 'hijacked' the thread a bit. Besides being fallible, an essential point 
> repeatedly emphasized by Peirce, we are all hypocritical at times. Color me 
> guilty.
> 
> I would welcome discussing Peirce and KR topics with you should you have 
> criticisms or observations based on my book (or elsewise). As a Peirce 
> scholar, I hope you agree with me that Peirce is perhaps the 
> philosopher/logician/mathematician par excellence on this very topic. I think 
> many on this forum, and the Peirce forum that I have added to this list, 
> would benefit from learning more about his cogent insights.
> 
> Best, Mike
> 
> [1] https://www.mkbergman.com/a-knowledge-representation-practionary/ 
> 
> On 12/4/2023 5:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> Mike,
>> 
>> I apologize for not seeing the original note about your book.  I downloaded 
>> a copy, which is very interesting indeed.   I have only had a chance to 
>> browse through it.  But from what I've read so far, it appears to be an 
>> excellent overview of Peirce's theories and strong evidence of their 
>> importance for knowledge representation theory and practice.  I would 
>> recommend it for Ontolog subscribers as a presentation of Peirce's theories 
>> of logic and ontology and their use as a foundation for knowledge systems 
>> and applications.
>> 
>> There are topics and comments that I would quibble about.  For example, 
>> Peirce's existential graphs have the full expressive power of the ISO 
>> standard for Common Logic, and they are much clearer, simpler, and more 
>> powerful than OWL2.But anybody who read or adopted the methods in your 
>> book could extend them to Common Logic.
>> 
>> As you said,  my remarks below "have nothing to do with the topics and 
>> discussion of this thread" -- as you wrote in the note I had not seen seen.  
>> Please note that your book has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (the 
>> subject line).  I was responding to the following point by Mike Denny:  "But 
>> is comparing quantum mechanics to pointillism indeed a clever idea?  Perhaps 
>> the analogy is more misleading than helpful." 
>> 
>> GPT had found an article with just one sentence about that topic, and it did 
>> not cite the original source.  In the original, the person who made that 
>> comparison was a physicist who knew perfectly well that it was just a 
>> one-line comment that had very little justification in a deeper theoretical 
>> sense.  But GPT made it sound like a summary of a serious theory.   Since 
>> GPT did not cite the source, there was no way of knowing (1) who said it 
>> first, (2) what was the context, (3) what was the scientific justification 
>> for it,  and most importantly (4) how could the reader find the original 
>> source and check those points?
>> 
>> Those are very serious flaws of GPT.  I believe that my response to Mike D 
>> (which you quoted below) was justified.   People who understand the 
>> limitations of GPT can use it effectively -- as you do.   But the great 
>> majority of people (of all ages and backgrounds) include a huge number who 
>> do not understand its limitations.  For them, it can be highly misleading -- 
>> even to the danger point, if taken seriously.
>> 
>> John
>>  
>> 
>> From: "Mike Bergman"  
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> My god, John, your lack of self-introspection on my response to you is 
>> astounding. You respond:
>> 
>>> As I keep repeating, I am enthusiastic about the LLM technology for many 
>>> valuable purposes, such as the ones you mention.  But I have been reading 
>>> many articles by GPT users and developers who are making very strong claims 
>>> about what LLMs do.   Many of them claim that GPT is passing the Turing 
>>> test for a human-level of intelligence.  Others are claiming that GPT 
>>> technology is getting better every day, and it will soon make all other AI 
>>> technology obsolete.
>>> 
>>> Whenever I see notes that repeat those cla

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Knowledge Representation

[John F Sowa]

Mike,

There are many important issues about Peirce's writings and their implications 
that require further discussion.  From my browsing, I can see that we have 
emphasized different points.  They're compatible, but the differences are worth 
discussing.

I certainly agree about the importance of Peirce's writings for current issues. 
 I have attended and participated in a several APA meetings, and it's sad that 
nobody outside of Peirce sessions cites him for anything.  Other sessions 
constantly cite Frege, Russel, Carnap, and Quine on topics for which Peirce's 
writings are far more  relevant to 21st C problems.

Right now, I have a tight deadline for an article that should have been 
finished months ago, and many people will be traveling for the holidays.  So 
further discussions would be a good theme for the new year.

John


From: "Mike Bergman" 

Hi John,
Thanks for your kind words about the book [1]. I included it in the prior 
thread, the subject of which I have changed, because Alex had inquired as to 
what my theoretical interest was in ChatGPT prompt engineering for possible use 
in assistance in ontology mapping. I try not to use these fora for 
self-promotion, but I welcomed the question nonetheless. In that regard, I also 
'hijacked' the thread a bit. Besides being fallible, an essential point 
repeatedly emphasized by Peirce, we are all hypocritical at times. Color me 
guilty.
I would welcome discussing Peirce and KR topics with you should you have 
criticisms or observations based on my book (or elsewise). As a Peirce scholar, 
I hope you agree with me that Peirce is perhaps the 
philosopher/logician/mathematician par excellence on this very topic. I think 
many on this forum, and the Peirce forum that I have added to this list, would 
benefit from learning more about his cogent insights.
Best, Mike
[1] https://www.mkbergman.com/a-knowledge-representation-practionary/
On 12/4/2023 5:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Mike,

I apologize for not seeing the original note about your book.  I downloaded a 
copy, which is very interesting indeed.   I have only had a chance to browse 
through it.  But from what I've read so far, it appears to be an excellent 
overview of Peirce's theories and strong evidence of their importance for 
knowledge representation theory and practice.  I would recommend it for Ontolog 
subscribers as a presentation of Peirce's theories of logic and ontology and 
their use as a foundation for knowledge systems and applications.

There are topics and comments that I would quibble about.  For example, 
Peirce's existential graphs have the full expressive power of the ISO standard 
for Common Logic, and they are much clearer, simpler, and more powerful than 
OWL2.But anybody who read or adopted the methods in your book could extend 
them to Common Logic.

As you said,  my remarks below "have nothing to do with the topics and 
discussion of this thread" -- as you wrote in the note I had not seen seen.  
Please note that your book has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (the 
subject line).  I was responding to the following point by Mike Denny:  "But is 
comparing quantum mechanics to pointillism indeed a clever idea?  Perhaps the 
analogy is more misleading than helpful."

GPT had found an article with just one sentence about that topic, and it did 
not cite the original source.  In the original, the person who made that 
comparison was a physicist who knew perfectly well that it was just a one-line 
comment that had very little justification in a deeper theoretical sense.  But 
GPT made it sound like a summary of a serious theory.   Since GPT did not cite 
the source, there was no way of knowing (1) who said it first, (2) what was the 
context, (3) what was the scientific justification for it,  and most 
importantly (4) how could the reader find the original source and check those 
points?

Those are very serious flaws of GPT.  I believe that my response to Mike D 
(which you quoted below) was justified.   People who understand the limitations 
of GPT can use it effectively -- as you do.   But the great majority of people 
(of all ages and backgrounds) include a huge number who do not understand its 
limitations.  For them, it can be highly misleading -- even to the danger 
point, if taken seriously.

John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and