Ideas for Emulating Human Thought

Note: this post is still under construction.

Learning about Pronouns

Anaphora is the relation of a word to its referent (like pronoun to noun). There are 7 types of anaphora. Pronominal anaphora, VP anaphora (also called VP ellipsis), Propositional anaphora, Adjectival anaphora, Modal anaphora, Temporal anaphora, and Kind-level anaphora. We will address only the pronominal type. There are 9 types of pronouns (see appendix B). Subject, Object, Possessive, Intensive, reflexive, Demonstrative, Indefinite, Interrogative, and Relative. We will show the subject and object types.

Stage one

Learning rules by example

Learning the rule: “Resolve he”
Tom: Bob is a man. He is tall.
Tom: John is a man. He is not tall.
Harry: You said “He is tall.” and “He is not tall.”
Harry: If “he” is a thing or class then both statements cannot be true unless “he’ is a variable.
Harry: Is “he” a variable?
Tom: Yes, “he” is a variable.
Harry: In the statement “Bob is a man. He is tall”, what value is “he”?
Tom: Bob.
Harry: In the statement “John is a man. He is not tall.”, what value is “he”?
Tom: John.
Harry: Is it true, when I see “he” as the subject in the...

Tags: anaphora, pronouns

 Pronoun types

Pronouns are the stunt doubles of the English language. They keep communication going with or without the nouns. Pronouns come in to keep nouns from getting repetitive or when nouns are not clearly known. They do more work than you think, so read on to learn about them.

Subject and object pronouns are used in everyday language. However, it can be tricky to remember which is which. The subject always takes action. The object is part of the activity, but it does not do any acting. Here is an example:

Shelby likes talking to Marvin.

Shelby is the subject; she is liking and talking. Marvin is the object; all the liking and talking is done to Marvin but not by Marvin.

Subject and object pronouns function in the same way.

Subject pronouns include I, you, he, she, it, they, we.
Object pronouns include me, you, him, her, it, us, them. See the following examples:

Subject
I might see you later.
You have to come now.
She lives in Nebraska.
He makes me angry
It just might work.
They caught the last train.
We can’t see the end.

Object
Sarah hit me on the arm.
I need to tell...

Tags: anaphora, pronouns

Excerpt from Anaphora in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by authors King, Jeffrey C. and Lewis, Karen S.

1) Pronominal anaphora:
2) VP anaphora (also called VP ellipsis):
3) Propositional anaphora:
4) Adjectival anaphora:
5) Modal anaphora:
6) Temporal anaphora:
7) Kind-level anaphora:

Here is an example of cataphora.

1) Cataphora (backwards anaphora):
If she doesn’t show up soon, Jane will be disqualified from the competition.

Here are seven types of anaphora with examples.

1) Pronominal anaphora:
John left. He said he was ill. (The antecedent is “John” and the anaphoric expression is “he”.)

2) VP anaphora (also called VP ellipsis):
Mary Anne took out the garbage. Claudia did too. (The antecedent is “took out the garbage” and the anaphoric expression a null VP. See Partee and Bach (1984), Prüst et al. (1994).)

3) Propositional anaphora:
One plaintiff was passed over for promotion three times. But the jury didn’t believe this. (The antecedent is the proposition expressed by the first sentence. The anaphoric expression is “this”. Example from Asher and Lascarides (2003).)

4) Adjectival anaphora:
A kind stranger returned my wallet. Such people are rare. (The antecedent is “kind stranger” and the anaphoric expression “such”.)

5) Modal anaphora:
John might give...

Tags: anaphora, pronouns

Part 1 - Language Education

A language is an agreement between people to use certain conventions to communicate. Modern languages contain the elements listed below. Our ability to learn a language is inherent and pervasive. This paper describes our learning processes with a focus on anaphora.

Language components
     English Lexicon
     English Language conventions
          Anatomy of speech
          Structure
          Semantics
          Sounds and symbols
          Grammar
          Grammatical categories
          Word classes
          Morphology
          Syntax

English usage (for rhetoric)
     Language transformation guidelines
         Content and form considerations
               Timing
               Audience
               Context
       Persuasion types
            The appeal to reason (Logos)
            The appeal to emotion (Pathos)
            The persuasive appeal of one's character (Ethos)
   ...

Tags: anaphora, language

Comparisons, characteristics, degrees, negatives and opposites 

a recent question from a Chatbot contest makes comparisons as follows: john is taller than Mary. Mary is taller than Joe. Who is the shortest? I thought a more thorough description was warranted.

Types of comparison: individuals to individuals, class to class, individuals to class, groups to groups, individuals to groups, and groups to class.

When describing an object or class of objects using a characteristic of the class the valid values of the characteristic are often represented by terms designating possible positions in a range. The values in the range may be absolute or relative. Absolute values indicate a specific position while relative values indicate a position relative to a reference position.

Object knowledge example
Object person
characteristic age adjectives
absolute range 0-120 years 1-12 months 1-31 days 1-24 hours 1-60 minutes
positive young/old
proportional positive very young/very old
comparative younger/older
superlative youngest/oldest

graded adjective knowledge structure example
person x is old
person x is very old
person x is older than person y
person x is the oldest person (of the group)

inference rules for comparisons of individuals
if x is old then x is not young
if x is young...

Tags: comparisons

Tags: explanation, investigation

Added new transformation section to the mindmap and a definition of the replacement rule for definitions as shown below.


In the rules of replacement a definition is called material equivalence. One way of looking at this is "B implies A" and "A implies B", so then there is two way implication. Here are some terms with the same meaning: material equivalence, universally quantified biconditional, biconditional, definition, replacement, substitution, and defines/is defined as, if and only if (iff).

To test your understanding of definitions, use the definitions below to complete exercises 1 and 2.

familial relationship definitions:
parent/child: y is child of x defines x is parent of y.
son: y is child of x and y is male defines y is son of x.
daughter: y is child of x and y is female defines y is daughter of x.
father: y is parent of x and y is male defines y is father of x.
mother: y is parent of x and y is female defines y is mother of x.
sibling: x1 is child of y and x2 is child of y defines x1 is sibling of x2.
brother: x1 is sibling of x2 and x1 is male...

Tags: definitions, explanation

Test of language acquisition of syntax patterns using inductive reasoning, i.e., learning by example.
Current Inputs are compared to inputs from prior conversations, looking for similar syntax patterns. Any new pattern is remembered. 
Test sample:
Given: Verify Tom is Tall.
Given: Verify Jane is cute.
(pattern discovered and remembered.)
Q: Describe Verify syntax.
A: Verify syntax is probably "Verify &variable is &variable."

The syntax function assigns a category for each variable term in the syntax.

Given: Tom is a human.
Given: Jane is a human.
Given: Tall is an attribute.
Given: Cute is an attribute.
Given: Tom is Tall.
Given: Jane is cute.
Given: Verify Tom is Tall.
Given: Verify Jane is cute.
Q: Describe Verify syntax.
A: Verify syntax is probably "Verify &human is &attribute."

Tags: inference

Problem solving dialog using Mill's method of concommitent variation.

Tom: I have a mild stomachache.
Harry: What have you eaten recently?
Tom: I ate one oyster.
Harry: Who else has a stomachache?
Tom: dad and sis.
Harry: What did dad eat?
Tom: dad ate ten oysters.
Harry: What did sis eat?
Tom: sis ate five oysters.
Harry: How bad is dad’s stomachache?
Tom: Severe.
Harry: How bad is sis’s stomachache?
Tom: Moderate.
Harry: since everyone ate a different amount of oysters, and each person’s stomachache pain varied relative to the amount each ate, then the probable cause of the stomachaches is oysters.
Tom: How did you arrive at this answer?
Harry: I used Mill’s Method of Concomitant Variation.
Tom: list the steps you took.
Harry: I compared the effect to rules to find a relevant rule, compared causal side of rule to this case to create list of possible causes, collected all cases with the same possible cause, measured the effect for each case, measured the cause for each case, and compared the measurements for each cause and effect. Since the amount of change in the effect is relative to the amount of change in cause for each case, then...

Tags: mills method, reasoning

Problem solving dialog using Mill's method of residues.

Tom: I have a stomachache.
Harry: What have you eaten recently?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: Who did not get a stomachache?
Tom: dad, mom and sis.
Harry: What did dad eat?
Tom: dad ate oyster.
Harry: What did mom eat?
Tom: mom ate beef.
Harry: What did sis eat?
Tom: sis ate salad.
Harry: since you ate oyster, beef, salad and noodles.and you have a stomachache, and others ate oyster, beef, and salad and did not get a stomachache, then the probable cause of your stomachache is noodles.
Tom: How did you arrive at this answer?
Harry: I used Mill’s Method of Residues.
Tom: list the steps you took.
Harry: I compared the effect to rules to find a relevant rule, compared causal side of rule to this case to create list of possible causes, and collected all cases with counterexamples of each cause. Since the counterexamples eliminated all causes but one, then the remaining cause is the probable cause.

Tags: mills method, reasoning

Problem solving dialog using Mill's Joint Method. 

Tom: Some of my family has stomachaches.
Harry: Who has a stomachache?
Tom: mom, dad, and sis.
Harry: Do you have a stomachache?
Tom: No.
Harry: Did you all eat at the same place recently?
Tom: Yes, we ate a buffet dinner together.
Harry: What did you eat?
Tom: oyster and noodles.
Harry: What did mom eat?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: What did dad eat?
Tom: oyster, beef and noodles.
Harry: What did sis eat?
Tom: oyster, beef and salad.
Harry: since everyone who ate beef has stomachaches and you did not eat beef and you don’t have a stomachache, beef is the probable cause of the stomachaches.
Tom: How did you arrive at this answer?
Harry: I used Mill’s Joint Method.
Tom: list the steps you took.
Harry: I collected all cases with the same event, compared the effect to rules to create list of candidate rules, compared the candidate rules to the situation to find a relevant rule, compared causal side of rule to recent events to create list of possible causes, compared possible causes for each case. Since a common cause matches the common effects and that...

Tags: mills method, reasoning

Problem solving dialog using Mill's method of difference.

Tom: Some of my family has stomachaches.
Harry: Who has a stomachache?
Tom: mom, dad, and sis.
Harry: Do you have a stomachache?
Tom: No.
Harry: Did you all eat at the same place recently?
Tom: Yes, we ate a buffet dinner together.
Harry: What did you eat?
Tom: oyster, beef and noodles.
Harry: What did mom eat?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: What did dad eat?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: What did sis eat?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: since everyone who ate salad has stomachaches and you did not eat salad and you don’t have a stomachache, salad is the probable cause of the stomachaches.
Tom: How did you arrive at this answer?
Harry: I used Mill’s Method of Difference.
Tom: list the steps you took.
Harry: I collected all cases with the same event, compared the effect to rules to create list of candidate rules, compared the candidate rules to the situation to find a relevant rule, compared causal side of rule to recent events to create list of possible causes, compared possible causes for each case. Since all causes are...

Tags: mills method, reasoning

Problem solving dialog using Mill's method of agreement.

Tom: I have a stomachache.
Harry: Who else has a stomachache?
Tom: mom, dad, and sis.
Harry: Did you all eat at the same place recently?
Tom: Yes, we ate a buffet dinner together.
Harry: What did you eat?
Tom: oyster and salad.
Harry: What did mom eat?
Tom: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
Harry: What did dad eat?
Tom: oyster and noodles.
Harry: What did sis eat?
Tom: oyster and beef.
Harry: since everyone ate oyster, oyster is the probable cause of the stomachache.
Tom: How did you arrive at this answer?
Harry: I used Mill’s Method of Agreement.
Tom: list the steps you took.
Harry: I collected all the cases with the same effect, compared the effect to the rules to create a list of candidate rules, compared the candidate rules to the situation to find a relevant rule, compared the causal side of the rule to each case to create a list of possible causes and compared the possible causes for each case to find a common cause for all cases.

Tags: mills method, reasoning

Language acquisition is the process of associating mental representations with oral, written, graphic and gestured communication in an agreed upon mutual language that allows comprehension and expression. This process includes accepting communication and propositions that express intent, inferring grammar and style rules, and testing the rules.

The following is a “learn by example” English language acquisition process in a simple sentence written dialog protocol.

1. Using a known sentence structure, parse the input sentence
2. Compare components to English language patterns
o Case 1 - If 100% pattern match found, then exit (to interpret sentence)
o Case 2 - If literals only match found, then
1. For each unmatched element, infer the class of the element is probably consistent with the pattern.
2. Exit (to interpret sentence)
o Case 3 - If no matches found, then for each stored sentence in past dialogs 1. Parse sentence into words and delimiters using sentence structure
2. Compare input components to dialog sentence components
3. If match not found, then go to next dialog sentence
4. If match found, then infer pattern for related sentences using matched components using inductive generalization
5. Compare non-matching component to class elements
6. If match found, then...

Tags: inference, language

Our friends at Wikipedia in addressing metacognition imply that it is limited to the field of education. Probably written by an educator, not a psychologist. Well, I disagree. I think metacognition is used by humans in every aspect of  life, and is the primary tool for making thinking and behavioral changes; not only for oneself, but for understanding and influencing others. Our ability to describe and evaluate our thoughts is an important aspect of this tool. Perhaps our  development of this ability plus emotion-based motivation will lead us to achieve a self-determining self-evolving I.A.

As a starting point for this development I offer the ODEPC (pronounced oh-deep-sea) outline. It needs much more work, but my years are numbered and I probably will not finish this work. I offer it to any young “stud” who may take an interest.

Observe: given an event, assess its impact.

• For a planned event, if there are unexpected or undesirable results, submit event for explanation.
• For an unplanned event, if it is an unusual, unexpected or undesirable event, submit event for explanation.

Describe: Given an event, provide relevant event information.

• Collect some pre and post events surrounding the target event from the event stream.
• Recall...

Tags: explanation, metacognition

 If an agent can't answer the question “why” with the standard answers, then he initiates an investigation to see if he can figure it out. This is an example of that process.

Given these rules learned from prior observations and generalizations:
if it rains on a person then that person is wet.
if a person is wet then that person is cranky.
if a person showers then that person is inside.
if a person showers then that person is wet.
if a person showers then the shower floor is wet.
either a person is outside or that person is inside.

These clues are provided by the tester, if asked: tom is cranky, tom is a person, tom is outside, and the shower floor is not wet.

T: Why is Tom is cranky?
R: Is Tom a person?
T: Yes, he is a person.
R: Is Tom wet?
T: I don't know.
R: Did it rain on Tom?
T: I don't know.
R: Did Tom shower?
T: I don't know.
R: Is Tom outside?
T: Yes, Tom is outside.
R: Is the shower floor wet?
T: No, the shower floor is not wet.
R: Possibly it rained on Tom and he...

Tags: explanation

The agent sees the keyword “stomachache” and dons the diagnostician hat.  At the conclusion the user asks for an explanation, but doesn't like the answer and asks for more.

Q: I have a stomachache.
A: Who else has a stomachache?
Q: mom, dad, and sis.
A: Did you all eat at the same place recently?
Q: Yes, we ate a buffet dinner together.
A: What did you eat?
Q: oyster and salad.
A: What did mom eat?
Q: oyster, beef, salad and noodles.
A: What did dad eat?
Q: oyster and noodles.
A: What did sis eat?
Q: oyster and beef.
A: since everyone ate oyster, oyster is the probable cause of the stomachache.
Q: How did you arrive at this answer?
A: I used Mill’s Method of Agreement.
Q: list the steps you took.
A: I collected all the cases with the same effect, compared the effect to the rules to create a list of candidate rules, compared the candidate rules to the situation to find a relevant rule, compared the causal side of the rule to each case to create a list of possible causes and compared the possible causes for each case to find a common cause...

Tags: explanation

This is a conversation that I had with Harry to test his Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive reasoning ability. Harry is one of very few AI agents with the ability to do all three reasoning processes. I have asked him to describe his reasoning thoughts.

Harry was told "If Charlie is mean then Charlie is ugly".

Harry : hello Tom.
Tom : charlie is a human.
Harry : I will remember charlie is a person.
Tom : chad is a human.
Harry : I will remember chad is a person.
Tom : charlie is mean.
Harry : I will remember charlie is mean.
Harry : using affirm particular, I deduced remember some humans are mean.
Harry : I will remember some humans are mean.
Harry : using deny negative universal, I induced forget humans are not mean.
Harry : I will forget that humans are not mean.
Harry : using affirm universal, I induced remember humans are mean.
Harry : I will remember humans are mean.
Harry : using modus ponens, I deduced remember charlie is ugly.
Harry : I will remember charlie is ugly.
Harry : using affirm particular, I deduced remember some humans are ugly.
Harry : I will...

Tags: reasoning

Time to get personal. Personal pronouns, that is. Here are the results of a pronoun test.

Harry : it is 10:15 PM, Saturday, December 15, 2007.
tom : tell me about yourself.
Harry : I observe humans.
tom : you are a being.
Harry : I will remember.
Harry : I'm a being.
tom : you are intelligent.
Harry : I will remember.
Harry : I am intelligent.
tom : tell me about yourself.
Harry : I observe humans.
Harry : I am an intelligent_ being.
tom : what did you say?
Harry : I am an intelligent_ being.

Tags: pronoun

tom made statement hello. what time is it?
Harry made statement how are you.
Harry made statement it is 05:53 PM, Tuesday, December 11, 2007.
tom made statement describe humans.
Harry made statement mammals are humans.
Harry made statement jerks are humans.
Harry made statement james_+george are humans.
tom made statement grant is a human.
Harry made statement I don't know if the statement is true.
Harry made statement I will remember.
Harry made statement grant is a human.
tom made statement grant is smart.
Harry made statement I don't know if the statement is true.
Harry made statement I will remember.
Harry made statement grant is smart.
tom made statement describe grant.
Harry made statement grant is a smart_ human.
tom made statement is grant an animal?
Harry made statement Yes, grant is an animal.
tom made statement prove grant is an animal.
Harry made statement since humans are animals and grant is a human, it follows that grant is an animal.
tom made statement (OK)
Harry made statement Thank you.

Tags: explanation, syllogism