Re: Questions - meta-questions about knowledge representation

You may want to rephrase question 1 and include non-western KRR.

When symbolic representation and/or formal logic are omitted we are left
only with natural language, statistical methods and mathematical fields of
analysis.
This area is covered by the overlap of quantum mechanics and Buddhist
philosophy.

To make it usable in the context of KRR for AI we must use category theory
and simplicial sets.


Milton Ponson
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
CIAMSD Institute-ICT4D Program
+2977459312
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean


On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:32 AM <ontologos@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Here are some meta-questions (background questions about the why and
> foundations) and devil's advocate questions that are not often (?) asked,
> but helpful for non-specialists, students, and I assume even experts. Note,
> I know some answers the following, but I would like to see the answers of
> others. Also, some answers i'm aware of are superficial, so hopefully we
> can have more substantive ones here.
>
> Context:
>
>    - When I studied knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) and
>    philosophy of AI, KRR was presented as one topic in AI. And symbolic and
>    non-symbolic approaches were mentioned.
>
>
> 1) Are there non-symbolic approaches to KRR?
> (Approaches that do not use symbolic logics?)
>
> If so, what are they, and what are the pro's and con's of both
> (non)symbolic KRR?
> (it may be helpful to define what you mean by symbolic and non-symbolic if
> different from the use of FOL and other logics)
>
> 2) Why use formal/symbol logics such as first-order predicate calculus (or
> others)?
> Do you have quantitative evidence for the benefits of them?
> Can you give examples of successful projects that publicize quantitaitve
> evidence for the benefits?
>
> 3) What are alternatives for KRR techniques for achieving the same goals
> KRR aims to?
>
> 4) Do you have quantitative evidence for the utility of KRR in general?
>
> 5) ...add your own meta-level questions...
>
> NOTE: I've seen answers to 2 & 4 are often found as qualitative
> descriptions, buzz-phrases, or hand-waving (like in many disciplines) but
> without clear and specific quantiattive evidence. So please focus on that.
> Quantiative evidence may involve: showing increases in efficiency of this
> or that computational process, (by the numbers), etc.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Roberto
> --
>
>