Context - Commonsense inverse relationship.

 Consider this sentence - There is a glass on the table.

Commonsense tells us to believe that the table surface is bigger than the base of the glass. (And a host of other things like say, the whole of the glass base is within the table surface). 

If the contextual information is supplied, there is no uncertainty and thereby necessity for commonsense, in principle. 

Context shapes / moulds / trims commonsense. The more contextual information you supply, the lesser commonsense you have to plug in / assume to understand the meaning of the sentence. But no contextual information is sufficient, for all practical purposes. There will always be some commonsense that will be left out, to be assumed, which is NOT supplied in the context.

(Probably that's the 'gap' when we say - a picture says what a 1000 words cannot describe). 

Status of commonsense knowledge in the mind.

Suppose someone introduces you to 2 boys and says - This is John and this is Jack. They are friends.

Now one relevant commonsense inference here is - They know each others' names - by using the commonsense knowledge that 'Friends know each others' names'. 

The fact that they know each others' names strikes us while we need it to use it to construct some thought. It doesn't strike us plainly and only and explicitly that "oh, so they must be knowing each others' names" when we are just told that John and Jack are friends. For example, suppose we want to ask one (say Jack) if he also studies with the other (and not just plays or hangs out), then, it will be processed, as a "check" in the mind, as a requisite thing, that they must be knowing each others' names, before we are about the say "So Jack, do you also study with John (or do you just play)?" (When you talk to Jack about John by uttering John's name, you are assuming that Jack knows John's name and thus, ONLY AT THAT TIME, the commonsense knowledge strikes you / gets processed in your head / becomes active, that friends know each others' names).

Commonsense knowledge comes to mind only when it is to be used. Otherwise it's "passive".

Source of realms of meanings of a sentence.

Consider this sentence - Jack gave a book to John.

In any sentence, we focus on only one aspect of (the meaning of) each word, for weaving the words into the meaning of the sentence as a whole, at a time. 

For example, the word ‘Jack’ has so much to it – he is a man/male, a human being, a body, a working professional, a Christian etc. Out of all this, all that we focus on is Jack, the basic human being with a body. Take 'book'. It is a solid physical object. It is a store of knowledge. It’s a tool/resource for formal education (say, it’s a text book or something). Out of all these, here, we take the aspect – a solid physical object.

How do we take these aspects? We happen to look at nearby words to a word while reading, and the sense in which we take them influences our semi-arbitrary (suitable though in a sense) choice of aspect of the word for weaving it into the meaning of the sentence. For example, the 'gave' almost immediately preceding 'book' tells us to take the book in the sense of a physical object being transported in space. This is because 'gave' is essentially/primarily seen as a physical action. Of course, upon more reflection, the nearby word to 'book, 'gave', is seen as a "general (physical or abstract) transfer" of anything, and that may give the book the sense of a knowledge-store-house, resulting in the net meaning of the sentence being taken as - Jack transferred a lot of knowledge to John. That's another way of weaving the aspects of the words into the whole meaning of the sentence. 

Or the 'to' dictates us to take the sense of the ownership or control of the book now being going to John, making us take John in the sense of a controller or owner (among his many aspects, same as Jack's). Whatever signal the mind takes upon first impression of a word decides the influence on the other words.

Minsky's realms (dominion, physical, etc.) of a sentence, mentioned in Chapter 6 of The Emotion Machine, stem from this.

'Word' and 'Sentence' - 2 sides of the same coin!

Take a sentence - John gave a book to Jack. This is made up of words.

The meaning of any word in the sentence is a combination of the meanings of some other words. So why isnt there a word for this given combination of words - the original sentence?

Well, there is something like a ‘General meaning’ (given in dictionaries; of words) and ‘Instantial meaning’ which is of specific “story-sentences” (which are combinations of words). General meaning is the generalization of an instantial-meaning-sentence. 

Relationship between a word and a sentence/string - 

Given Word -> converts to general meaning string -> Case of which is -> Instantial Meaning string -> Generalize -> converts to word (in many cases)

Thus 'word' and 'string/sentence' are 2 sides of the same coin - the conversion operator being - GENERALIZE/INSTANTIATE!

E.g. - 

Give -> transfer the possession of something to someone -> John transferred the possession of a ball to Jack -> someone transferred the possession of something to someone -> gave 

An Analytical Result

 A gave a book to B.

This is a typical description of some observed scene.

A gives a book. What is the inception-point of this? The intent in A's mind to give (for whatever specific reason - say, A is B's elder brother who wants his younger brother to read that book).  

Now, there are 3 realms (Minsky, M., The Emotion Machine Chapter 6 pg. 4) - there is the physical motion of the book, the transfer of knowledge, and the transfer of ownership and control. But we dont describe the realms other than the physical transfer, i.e. say things like "A transferred knowledge to B" or "A transferred ownership or control of the book to B". They remain hidden. The physical transfer realm is RESPONSIBLE FOR the other realms; it is the cause of the other realms. 

In the case of the individual (i.e. A) the, the intent/cause is hidden (not described) and the effect is described (by saying that 'A gave a book to B'). Seen from the point of view of the external totality of the event (wherein the realms can be seen to lie), the physical transfer (which is the cause of the other realms) is described and the effects (the other realms) are hidden (not described).

In one reference frame, the description (A gave a book to B) is the effect, in the other it is the cause.

The commonsense in the case of the individual is in the cause. The commonsense in the case of the external totality is in the effect. 

Note : By 'external totality' it is simply meant - seeing the scene from a third person's point of view.

The Laws of Thought : Psychology + Logic

The Laws of Thought : Psychology + Logic.

Suppose someone tells you a statement which is new to you and you comprehend well - say - John is highly intelligent.

The first point, in my view is - why does this statement get registered/impacted in your head? 1) Is it because of the word "John"? Say, you are pre-interested in John 2) Is it because of the word "intelligent"? Say, you are pre-interested in intelligence. 3) Is it because of both the words - "John" and "intelligent". Say, you have a fascination for both John and the concept of intelligence.

In case 1 - If I am pre-interested in John, what will get registered or impacted in my mind is 'intelligent' because 'John' is something I already know about, but today I came to know that he is highly intelligent. The new part is the "intelligent" (that he is intelligent), and the 'John' is already something I am used to in some ways (since I was pre-interested in him and hence knew some things about him). The 'intelligent' is the new part in contrast with all that I knew till now about John. So "intelligent" is the impact word.

Case 2 - Similarly, if I am pre-interested in intelligence, "John" is the impact word.

Case 3 - If I am pre-interested in both 'John' and 'intelligent', then the association 'John-intelligent' will get registered/impacted in my mind. Think of one and you think of the other!

Now, if I now come to know something more about intelligence, then in case 1, I will be "drawn to" deductive reasoning from the given statement since intelligent has stayed in my mind and in the very heat of that moment I hear something about intelligent. Hence I will quickly connect John to that new information I have just jumped to (or just been freshly exposed to) about 'intelligence' - say, intelligent people are introvert - and draw the inference that 'John is introvert'. There is a high chance that I will do deductive reasoning.

If I come to know something more about John (say, The Smiths are John's parents), then in case 2, I will be drawn to do abductive reasoning that 'the Smiths must be smart'. This is because John is what has gripped the mind and any new information about John, in the heat of that gripping, would lead the mind to link the impact-word 'John' to the freshly consumed new information about the impact-word itself. Yes, the mind has used an additional information 'intelligent people give birth to intelligent children', but that additional information is general commonsense information floating in the mind  and came in as one of the things you know about the pre-interested topic 'intelligence'. 

I haven't been able to cast the third case into any appropriate logical reasoning format. Probably, inductive reasoning since "one comes along, by default, with the other, always". Yes, probably inductive...

 

The Meaning of MORE

 The meaning of MORE - 

We casually and easily say - more apples, more phones, more trouble, more scolding etc. But what is the technical or Cognitive meaning of the concept? More is more of something. Say, of 'X'. So, firstly, X already exists. And, as the phenomenon - more - says, there is "more of X". Though it is very difficult to define more, one can see 4 properties of MORE :

1) MORE adds to some property/ies of the initial thing. When I get more phones, the property of 'phone'ness or 'something being a phone' is added to. If a computer is added to a collection of phones, the 'electronic-item'ness is added to, and we have 'more' electronic items.

2) Cognitively speaking, there is a detection of a 'match' with what is / has gone into memory (earlier). This is what gives the experiential "feel" of more.

3) 'MORE'ness "fills up" / "takes up" / "occupies" finite space.

4) There is a "location" to X (X is that whose more we are considering), where the more of X keeps piling. This relates to the 'filling up finite space'-point above. There is a location or a space, UNDER CONSIDERATION, where the piling up of X is happening. 

The elementary core of Reason - from Logical and Cognitive perspectives -

 

The elementary core of Reason - from Logical and Cognitive perspectives -

Consider this - John gave Jack a gift. Gifts make Jack happy. So John gave Jack something which made Jack happy.

Lets simplify. John gave Jack a gift. ‘A gift’ makes Jack happy. So, John gave Jack something which made Jack happy.

A gift makes Jack happy. And John gave Jack a gift. How does that imply that John gave Jack something that made him happy? Because, a gift is a gift. Why? When a word is assigned to some piece of reality, any other instance of reality satisfying the criteria of assigning that word to the original reality, will be allowed to be assigned that word. Conversely, that word can refer to that other instance of reality. That is the functional definition of a word.

Cognitively speaking, it is a primary, in-born (the latter is a claim here) instinct “to take note of” something that the mind encounters in reality, which is already in memory (which has been encountered before). A subtle definitive extension of “taking note of” would be “involuntarily applying whatever one knows about the previously encountered entity to the newly, repeatedly encountered one”. That might be the most basic (intelligent) use of what we call ‘memory’.

COMMONSENSE DESCRIPTIONS Of REALITY

 Actually, in any visual data, there is infinite data. So what should we describe?

A basic question is - when we see reality (a video, a scene) what in it do we describe when we have to do so?

We describe 3 things (when there is no specific question asked to answer about that piece of reality). So in "default", commonsense contexts, we describe 3 things -

1) all CHANGES

2) what remains the same for a considerable amount of time.

3) anything that is special, for whatever reason, as per default context (commonsense).

NOTE - The items in the scene that we talk about (say, John and ball in 'John was dribbling the ball'), (which also includes the subject of the description), are also the "things which remain the same throughout the scene" and hence qualify as "that which remains the same for a considerable amount of time" (type 2). The ball remains a ball throughout, and John remains John throughout the video/scene.

E.g. -

1) John opened the door and stepped outside.

Here the 'changes' are John's action (moving his hand), the door opening, and John stepping outside. Here, this is a short-duration, quick action. So there is no question of anything remaining the same for a considerable amount of time (even though there are things which remain the same in the scene, like say, John's shirt's color).

2) John was sitting quietly for 10 minutes.

Here there are no (apparent) changes. Here, something that remains the same for a considerable amount of time (John remaining quiet for 10 minutes) has been described.

3) John was dribbling the ball.

Dribbling is the change taking place in time and space (of the ball and John's hands). So that's been described. John and ball remain the same throughout the video which makes them being included as the items being talked about. Now, the (basketball) court also remains the same (and which is in the sight/view which contains the reality (John dribbling the ball) being described), but that is not mentioned since that comes under commonsense.

4) In the above examples, we haven't touched upon type 3. If there is a 300 kg man in a scene, he is going to be talked about since he qualifies as type 3 (special in the DEFAULT, commonsense context).