[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:28:52PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > 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.

I found his dissertation, but I couldn't find "cue" in it!  Am I
skimming too fast?

Or do you have any other ideas for tracking this down?

> >   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.

Yes.  WLJ >>notes

> > 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.

OK, good point.  WLJ >>notes

> > 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.

Certainly it is a stretch to say that you are participating in the
situation "superbowl", however, why is it a stretch to say that you
are a participating-agent of the situation "watching the superbowl on
TV"?

In other words, I define the situation cue pragmatically as whatever
is going on.  How can you presume a participatingAgent who is
disconnected from her associated situation?

> 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.

Yes yes.

> > 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?

Yes.

I meant "How does Toby imagine Toby" as an artifical expansion caused
by parameterization, NOT as Toby's self-reflection about his own
opinion.

> > 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.

Well, almost.

I still want to add another parameter.  To lessen your reluctance, I
want to mention that this is the last contextual parameter I wish to
add.  I do not propose yet more repetitions of "How does KM imagine
Toby imagine daddy imagine Toby imagine ..."  That is too much!  But I
do want one more parameter.

Please indulge me.  What can we call this parameter?

Perhaps the problem with POINT-OF-VIEW is that it suggests the same
concept as APPRAISING-AGENT.  How about OPINER or OPINARI?  If OPINER
then I suppose:

> (a) How does Toby imagine Toby feels about receiving hot chocolate?

OPINER = Toby
APPRAISING-AGENT = Toby

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

OPINER = Toby
APPRAISING-AGENT = daddy

How does that sound?

As soon as we finalize this parameter then I'm going to email the
revised "big summary" which I am amassing.

+ + +

To review: the mindreader (your definition, above) can be Toby or KM
or a random web surfer.  At least we have an agreed-upon definition
for "mindreader."  ++Progress

-- 
A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://openheartlogic.org