[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing (was Re: appraisee)

[William L. Jarrold]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 06:16:19PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > OK, now if we have parameterized "appraiser" then we can
> > > parameterize "appraisee" also?
> >
> > Sure.  But I think appraisee is a misleading name.  Appraisee suggest
> > that it is an object of the appraiser's appraisal.  This is not,
> > in general true.  Tracy might feel appreciation toward Mommy.  In this
> > case Mommy is the object appraised, and appraisee might be a good name
> > for Mommy's role.  But Tricy might feel happy about the event.  In this
> > case Mommy is not the object appraised, but the event is.  But calling
> > an event the appraisee is even more confusing since we expect -ee's to
> > be agents.
> >
> > Thus, drawing on my experience with Cyc, I think that Mommy is an actor
> > in the situation but participant is an even better name for her role.
> > participatingAgent is a spec slot of participant...And, of course, Mommy
> > plays the role of "givingAgent" which is a spec slot of
> > participatingAgent.
> >
> > The slot hierarchy looks like this, roughly...
> >
> > participant
> >    ^
> >    |
> >    |
> > participatingAgent
> >    ^
> >    |
> >  (skip a few slots)
> >    |
> > givingAgent
>
> Wow, we are actually making headway on this.  Cool.

Yeah!  The way I respond to emails it like 359.5 steps forward,
278.9 steps backward.  432.6 forward, 434.7 backwards.

>
> > >   Cue: Mommy gives Tracy an apple.
> >
> > Btw, emotion eliciting situation is what Clark Elliot
> > has called the cue.
>
> Do you have a citation for that?  It would be cool to include
> such a citation in the glossary.

I think you have one now, right?  As I recall you found his dissertation
and loved it.

>
> > Sorry for my obsession with names,
> > but I think it really helps develop a shared understanding
> > of a domain to have very good, non-misleading names.
>
> Absolutely!  I feel like much of our conversation is just a matter
> of probing for standard terms so I can expand the isomorphism
> between my idiosyncratic conceptions and WLJ / established conceptions.
>
> Now I want to double-check that we are on the same page.  We have
> parameterized "appraiser" and "participatingAgent".  Here is how
> I think it works:
>
>   At bedtime daddy makes Toby some hot chocolate.
>     participatingAgent = Toby, daddy

Just to be sure....participatingAgents maps between an event or situation
(depending on how general you want the slot to be) and an Agent.  The
agent may participate from afar, like a general participates in
a war by directing it to very directly, like where daddy actually
physically touches hot chocolate making instruments.

>     appraiser = Toby

Yes.

>
> For our simple appraisal model, there are exactly two
> participatingAgents for any given appraisal.  (Yet, there can be more
> than two participants per cue.)

Yes.

> For any given appraisal, there is an
> appraiser.

Yes.  In most contexts, I think it makes sense to say that there is
exactly one appraiser for every appraisal.  After all, appraisal is kind
of like thinking.  So, even tho you and I might be thinking the same
thought, we are not participating in the same thinking event.  Your
thinking occurs in your brain and my thinking occurs in my brain.  An
exception might be the Borg on star trek where they think collectively.
And then again, I can see a different kind of thinking, less
materialistically defined which CAN involve two people (e.g. "The
thinking of Marx and Engles occured most intensely between the years of
XXXX".)  But lets stick with simple definitions for starters.  When we
take our system to high school, we can teach it fancier concepts like how
Borg's appraise and/or think about things.

> The appraiser is one of the two participatingAgents.
> Correct?

Often yes.  Certainly for the 3 year old view of the world, I suppose.

Then again you can be watching the 2nd Superbowl on TV and be
an appraiser of it even tho it is quite a stretch to claim that you
were a participatingAgent in it.

It would be great to save these kinds of examples and refinements to the
definitions of these concepts on the actual slots.  I like to use
Cyc for this.  It has a much nicer user interface than KM.  But whatever.
If you would like to help nudge the model along in this respect, I would
appreciate it.  As we get more serious about KR, you'll probably hear
me whine about this more.

>
> Now I want to parameterize one more facet of appraisal.  Given this
> cue / appraisal:
>
>   At bedtime daddy makes Toby some hot chocolate.
>     participatingAgents = Toby, daddy
>     appraiser = Toby
>
> Which parameter distinguishes between:
>
>   How does Toby imagine Toby feels about receiving hot chocolate?
>     (or simply "How does Toby feel about receiving hot chocolate?")
>
>   How does Toby imagine daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?

Just to be sure, you want a param to distinguish between...

(a) How does Toby feel about receiving hot chocolate?

..and...

(b) How does Toby imagine daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?

>
> In other words, who is the appraiser trying to mindread?
> Can we call this parameter "point of view" or do you have
> a better idea?

I like the name mindreader.  For the sake of keeping things simple
for the beginning, the mindreader should usually *not* be a
participatingAgents.  When the KM model is running, then IT is the
mindreader.  When Joe Blow is surfing the internet filling out
our survey, then Joe Blow is the mindreader.

But, okay, fine, in (b), Toby is the mindreader and Daddy is the
appraiser.  In (a), I am the mindreader when I infer that Toby is
mad as hell.

Bill

>
> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader
>