[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing

[Joshua N Pritikin]

[I'm re-sending this again because I had a few more thoughts (added
near the bottom) and to keep it fresh in your inbox.]

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

+ + +

29 Jan addendum:

Perhaps the concepts are structured like this: POINT-OF-VIEW and
OPINER are two components of APPRAISING-AGENT.  If both OPINER and
POINT-OF-VIEW are assigned to the same PARTICIPATING-AGENT then we get
a rule like this:

(=> (and (= OPINER ?agent)
         (= POINT-OF-VIEW ?agent))
    (= APPRAISING-AGENT ?agent))

However, if we phrase an appraisal like this:

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

Then we have:

OPINER = Toby
POINT-OF-VIEW = daddy

and the old APPRAISING-AGENT concept doesn't work.

Here's another way to look at it: I'm trying to specify the lookup
path in a Clark Eliott style model.  OPINER is one of the
PARTICIPATING-AGENTs and POINT-OF-VIEW is which COO (concerns of
others) database to query for the answer.

I guess POINT-OF-VIEW can be more complex like a COO of a COO, but I
don't want to model so much detail at this point.

OK, that's the "how".  The "why" is this: In your dissertation, if I
am the APPRAISING-AGENT then I never look at things from another
person's point of view.  For example, if I am Toby then I always look
at things from Toby's POINT-OF-VIEW.  That's why I want to add another
parameter: I always want to include a POINT-OF-VIEW parameter in the
model, even if I am the OPINER.

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