Category: symbolic communication

OKSIMO MEETS POPPER. The Generalized Oksimo Theory Paradigm

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 5.April – 5.April  2021
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Last changes: Small corrections, April 8, 2021

CONTEXT

This text is part of a philosophy of science  analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive  posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for  this software.

THE GENERALIZED OKSIMO THEORY PARADIGM
The Generalized Oksimo Paradigm
Figure: Overview of the Generalized Oksimo Paradigm

In the preceding sections it has been shown that the oksimo paradigm is principally fitting in the theory paradigm as it has been  discussed by Popper. This is possible because some of the concepts used by Popper have been re-interpreted by re-analyzing the functioning of the symbolic dimension. All the requirements of Popper could be shown to work but now even in a more extended way.

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

To describe the oksimo paradigm it is not necessary to mention as a wider context the general perspective of sustainability as described by the United Nations [UN][1]. But if one understands the oksiomo paradigm deeper and one knows that from the 17 sustainable development goals [SDGs] the fourth goal [SDG4] is understood by the UN as the central key for the development of all the other SDGs [2], then one can understand this as an invitation to think about that kind of knowledge which could be the ‘kernel technology’ for sustainability. A ‘technology’ is not simply ‘knowledge’, it is a process which enables the participants — here assumed as human actors with built-in meaning functions — to share their experience of the world and as well their hopes, their wishes, their dreams to become true in a reachable future. To be ‘sustainable’ these visions have to be realized in a fashion which keeps the whole of biological life alive on earth as well in the whole universe. Biological life is the highest known value with which the universe is gifted.

Knowledge as a kernel technology for a sustainable future of the whole biological life has to be a process where all human biological life-forms headed by the human actors have to contribute with their experience and capabilities to find those possible future states (visions, goals, …) which can really enable a sustainable future.

THE SYMBOLIC DIMENSION

To enable different isolated brains in different bodies to ‘cooperate’ and thereby to ‘coordinate’ their experience, and their behavior, the only and most effective way to do this is known as ‘symbolic communication’: using expressions of some ordinary language whose ‘meaning’ has been learned by every member of the population beginning with being born on this planet.  Human actors (classified as the life-form ‘homo sapiens’) have the most known elaborated language capability by being able to associate all kinds of experience with expressions of an ordinary language. These ‘mappings’ between expressions and the general experience is taking place ‘inside the brain’ and these mappings are highly ‘adaptive’; they can change over time and they are mostly ‘synchronized’ with the mappings taking place in other brains. Such a mapping is here called a ‘meaning function’ [μ].

DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXPRESSIONS

The different sientific disciplines today have developed many different views and models how to describe the symbolic dimension, their ‘parts’, their functioning. Here we assume only three different kinds of expressions which can be analayzed further with nearly infinite many details.

True Concrete Expressions [S_A]

The ‘everyday case’ occurs if human actors share a real actual situation and they use their symbolic expressions to ‘talk about’ the shared situation, telling each other what is given according to their understanding using their built-in meaning function μ. With regard to the shared knowledge and language these human actors can decide, wether an expression E used in the description is matching the observed situation or not. If the expression is matching than such an expression is classified as being a ‘true expression’. Otherwise it is either undefined or eventually ‘false’ if it ‘contradicts’ directly. Thus the set of all expressions assumed to be true in a actual given situation S is named  here S_A. Let us look to an example: Peter says, “it is raining”, and Jenny says “it is not raining”. If all would agree, that   it is raining, then Peters expression is classified as ‘true’ and Jennys expression as ‘false’. If  different views would exist in the group, then it is not clear what is true or false or undefined in this group! This problem belongs to the pragmatic dimension of communication, where human actors have to find a way to clarify their views of the world. The right view of the situation  depends from the different individual views located in the individual brains and these views can be wrong. There exists no automatic procedure to get a ‘true’ vision of the real world.

General Assumptions [S_U]

It is typical for human actors that they are collecting knowledge about the world including general assumptions like “Birds can fly”, “Ice is melting in the sun”, “In certain cases the covid19-virus can bring people to death”, etc. These expressions are usually understood as ‘general’ rules  because they do not describe a concrete single case but are speaking of many possible cases. Such a general rule can be used within some logical deduction as demonstrated by the  classical greek logic:  ‘IF it is true that  “Birds can fly” AND we have a certain fact  “R2D2 is a bird” THEN we can deduce the fact  “R2D2 can fly”‘.  The expression “R2D2 can fly”  claims to be  true. Whether this is ‘really’ the case has to be shown in a real situation, either actually or at some point in the future. The set of all assumed general assumptions is named here S_U.

Possible Future States [S_V]

By experience and some ‘creative’ thinking human actors can imagine concrete situations, which are not yet actually given but which are assumed to be ‘possible’; the possibility can be interpreted as some ‘future’ situation. If a real situation would be reached which includes the envisioned state then one could say that the vision has become  ‘true’. Otherwise the envisioned state is ‘undefined’: perhaps it can become true or not.  In human culture there exist many visions since hundreds or even thousands of years where still people are ‘believing’ that they will become ‘true’ some day. The set of all expressions related to a vision is named here S_V.

REALIZING FUTURE [X, ⊢X]

If the set of expressions S_V  related to a ‘vision’ (accompanied by many emotions, desires, details of all kinds) is not empty,  then it is possible to look for those ‘actions’ which with highest ‘probability’ π can ‘change’ a given situation S_A in a way that the new situation S’  is becoming more and more similar to the envisioned situation S_V. Thus a given goal (=vision) can inspire a ‘construction process’ which is typical for all kinds of engineering and creative thinking. The general format of an expression to describe a change is within the oksimo paradigm assumed as follows:

  1. With regard to a given situation S
  2. Check whether a certain set of expressions COND is a subset of the expressions of S
  3. If this is the case then with probability π:
  4. Remove all expressions of the set Eminus from S,
  5. Add all expressions of the set Eplus to S
  6. and update (compute) all parameters of the set Model

In a short format:

S’π = S – Eminus + Eplus & MODEL(S)

All change rules together represent the set X. In the general theory paradigm the change rules X represent the inference rules, which together with a general ‘inference concept’ ⊢X constitute the ‘logic’ of the theory. This enables the following general logical relation:

{S_U, S_A} ⊢X  <S_A, S1, S2, …, Sn>

with the continuous evaluation: |S_V ⊆ Si| > θ. During the whole construction it is possible to evaluate each individual state whether the expressions of the vision state S_V are part of the actual state Si and to which degree.

Such a logical deduction concept is called a ‘simulation’ by using a ‘simulator’ to repeat the individual deductions.

POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS

The above outlined oksimo theory paradigm can easily be extended by some more features:

  1. AUTONOMOUS ACTORS: The change rules X so far are ‘static’ rules. But we know from everyday life that there are many dynamic sources around which can cause some change, especially biological and non-biological actors. Every such actors can be understood as an input-output system with an adaptive ‘behavior function’ φ.  Such a behavior can not be modeled by ‘static’ rules alone. Therefore one can either define theoretical models of such ‘autonomous’ actors with  their behavior and enlarge the set of change rules X with ‘autonomous change rules’ Xa as Xa ⊆ X. The other variant is to include in real time ‘living autonomous’ actors as ‘players’ having the role of an ‘autonomous’ rule and being enabled to act according to their ‘will’.
  2. MACHINE INTELLIGENCE: To run a simulation will always give only ‘one path’ P in the space of possible states. Usually there would be many more paths which can lead to a goal state S_V and the accompanying parameters from Model can be different: more or less energy consumption, more or less financial losses, more or less time needed, etc. To improve the knowledge about the ‘good candidates’ in the possible state space one can introduce  general machine intelligence algorithms to evaluate the state space and make proposals.
  3. REAL-TIME PARAMETERS: The parameters of Model can be connected online with real measurements in near real-time. This would allow to use the collected knowledge to ‘monitor’ real processes in the world and based on the collected knowledge recommend actions to react to some states.
COMMENTS

[1] The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests. See PDF: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publication/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

[2] UN, SDG4, PDF, Argumentation why the SDG4 ist fundamental for all other SDGs: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2275sdbeginswitheducation.pdf

 

 

THE OKSIMO CASE as SUBJECT FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. Part 1

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 22.March – 23.March 2021
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This text is part of a philosophy of science  analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive  posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for  this software.

THE OKSIMO EVENT SPACE

The characterization of the oksimo software paradigm starts with an informal characterization  of the oksimo software event space.

EVENT SPACE

An event space is a space which can be filled up by observable events fitting to the species-specific internal processed environment representations [1], [2] here called internal environments [ENVint]. Thus the same external environment [ENV] can be represented in the presence of  10 different species  in 10 different internal formats. Thus the expression ‘environment’ [ENV] is an abstract concept assuming an objective reality which is common to all living species but indeed it is processed by every species in a species-specific way.

In a human culture the usual point of view [ENVhum] is simultaneous with all the other points of views [ENVa] of all the other other species a.

In the ideal case it would be possible to translate all species-specific views ENVa into a symbolic representation which in turn could then be translated into the human point of view ENVhum. Then — in the ideal case — we could define the term environment [ENV] as the sum of all the different species-specific views translated in a human specific language: ∑ENVa = ENV.

But, because such a generalized view of the environment is until today not really possible by  practical reasons we will use here for the beginning only expressions related to the human specific point of view [ENVhum] using as language an ordinary language [L], here  the English language [LEN]. Every scientific language — e.g. the language of physics — is understood here as a sub language of the ordinary language.

EVENTS

An event [EV] within an event space [ENVa] is a change [X] which can be observed at least from the  members of that species [SP] a which is part of that environment ENV which enables  a species-specific event space [ENVa]. Possibly there can be other actors around in the environment ENV from different species with their specific event space [ENVa] where the content of the different event spaces  can possible   overlap with regard to  certain events.

A behavior is some observable movement of the body of some actor.

Changes X can be associated with certain behavior of certain actors or with non-actor conditions.

Thus when there are some human or non-human  actors in an environment which are moving than they show a behavior which can eventually be associated with some observable changes.

CHANGE

Besides being   associated with observable events in the (species specific) environment the expression  change is understood here as a kind of inner state in an actor which can compare past (stored) states Spast with an actual state Snow.  If the past and actual state differ in some observable aspect Diff(Spast, Snow) ≠ 0, then there exists some change X, or Diff(Spast, Snow) = X. Usually the actor perceiving a change X will assume that this internal structure represents something external to the brain, but this must not necessarily be the case. It is of help if there are other human actors which confirm such a change perception although even this does not guarantee that there really is a  change occurring. In the real world it is possible that a whole group of human actors can have a wrong interpretation.

SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION AND MEANING

It is a specialty of human actors — to some degree shared by other non-human biological actors — that they not only can built up internal representations ENVint of the reality external to the  brain (the body itself or the world beyond the body) which are mostly unconscious, partially conscious, but also they can built up structures of expressions of an internal language Lint which can be mimicked to a high degree by expressions in the body-external environment ENV called expressions of an ordinary language L.

For this to work one  has  to assume that there exists an internal mapping from internal representations ENVint into the expressions of the internal language   Lint as

meaning : ENVint <—> Lint.

and

speaking: Lint —> L

hearing: Lint <— L

Thus human actors can use their ordinary language L to activate internal encodings/ decodings with regard to the internal representations ENVint  gained so far. This is called here symbolic communication.

NO SPEECH ACTS

To classify the occurrences of symbolic expressions during a symbolic communication  is a nearly infinite undertaking. First impressions of the unsolvability of such a classification task can be gained if one reads the Philosophical Investigations of Ludwig Wittgenstein. [5] Later trials from different philosophers and scientists  — e.g. under the heading of speech acts [4] — can  not fully convince until today.

Instead of assuming here a complete scientific framework to classify  occurrences of symbolic expressions of an ordinary language L we will only look to some examples and discuss these.

KINDS OF EXPRESSIONS

In what follows we will look to some selected examples of symbolic expressions and discuss these.

(Decidable) Concrete Expressions [(D)CE]

It is assumed here that two human actors A and B  speaking the same ordinary language L  are capable in a concrete situation S to describe objects  OBJ and properties PROP of this situation in a way, that the hearer of a concrete expression E can decide whether the encoded meaning of that expression produced by the speaker is part of the observable situation S or not.

Thus, if A and B are together in a room with a wooden  white table and there is a enough light for an observation then   B can understand what A is saying if he states ‘There is a white wooden table.‘

To understand means here that both human actors are able to perceive the wooden white table as an object with properties, their brains will transform these external signals into internal neural signals forming an inner — not 1-to-1 — representation ENVint which can further be mapped by the learned meaning function into expressions of the inner language Lint and mapped further — by the speaker — into the external expressions of the learned ordinary language L and if the hearer can hear these spoken expressions he can translate the external expressions into the internal expressions which can be mapped onto the learned internal representations ENVint. In everyday situations there exists a high probability that the hearer then can respond with a spoken ‘Yes, that’s true’.

If this happens that some human actor is uttering a symbolic expression with regard to some observable property of the external environment  and the other human actor does respond with a confirmation then such an utterance is called here a decidable symbolic expression of the ordinary language L. In this case one can classify such an expression  as being true. Otherwise the expression  is classified as being not true.

The case of being not true is not a simple case. Being not true can mean: (i) it is actually simply not given; (ii) it is conceivable that the meaning could become true if the external situation would be  different; (iii) it is — in the light of the accessible knowledge — not conceivable that the meaning could become true in any situation; (iv) the meaning is to fuzzy to decided which case (i) – (iii) fits.

Cognitive Abstraction Processes

Before we talk about (Undecidable) Universal Expressions [(U)UE] it has to clarified that the internal mappings in a human actor are not only non-1-to-1 mappings but they are additionally automatic transformation processes of the kind that concrete perceptions of concrete environmental matters are automatically transformed by the brain into different kinds of states which are abstracted states using the concrete incoming signals as a  trigger either to start a new abstracted state or to modify an existing abstracted state. Given such abstracted states there exist a multitude of other neural processes to process these abstracted states further embedded  in numerous  different relationships.

Thus the assumed internal language Lint does not map the neural processes  which are processing the concrete events as such but the processed abstracted states! Language expressions as such can never be related directly to concrete material because this concrete material  has no direct  neural basis.  What works — completely unconsciously — is that the brain can detect that an actual neural pattern nn has some similarity with a  given abstracted structure NN  and that then this concrete pattern nn  is internally classified as an instance of NN. That means we can recognize that a perceived concrete matter nn is in ‘the light of’ our available (unconscious) knowledge an NN, but we cannot argue explicitly why. The decision has been processed automatically (unconsciously), but we can become aware of the result of this unconscious process.

Universal (Undecidable) Expressions [U(U)E]

Let us repeat the expression ‘There is a white wooden table‘ which has been used before as an example of a concrete decidable expression.

If one looks to the different parts of this expression then the partial expressions ‘white’, ‘wooden’, ‘table’ can be mapped by a learned meaning function φ into abstracted structures which are the result of internal processing. This means there can be countable infinite many concrete instances in the external environment ENV which can be understood as being white. The same holds for the expressions ‘wooden’ and ‘table’. Thus the expressions ‘white’, ‘wooden’, ‘table’ are all related to abstracted structures and therefor they have to be classified as universal expressions which as such are — strictly speaking —  not decidable because they can be true in many concrete situations with different concrete matters. Or take it otherwise: an expression with a meaning function φ pointing to an abstracted structure is asymmetric: one expression can be related to many different perceivable concrete matters but certain members of  a set of different perceived concrete matters can be related to one and the same abstracted structure on account of similarities based on properties embedded in the perceived concrete matter and being part of the abstracted structure.

In a cognitive point of view one can describe these matters such that the expression — like ‘table’ — which is pointing to a cognitive  abstracted structure ‘T’ includes a set of properties Π and every concrete perceived structure ‘t’ (caused e.g. by some concrete matter in our environment which we would classify as a ‘table’) must have a ‘certain amount’ of properties Π* that one can say that the properties  Π* are entailed in the set of properties Π of the abstracted structure T, thus Π* ⊆ Π. In what circumstances some speaker-hearer will say that something perceived concrete ‘is’ a table or ‘is not’ a table will depend from the learning history of this speaker-hearer. A child in the beginning of learning a language L can perhaps call something   a ‘chair’ and the parents will correct the child and will perhaps  say ‘no, this is table’.

Thus the expression ‘There is a white wooden table‘ as such is not true or false because it is not clear which set of concrete perceptions shall be derived from the possible internal meaning mappings, but if a concrete situation S is given with a concrete object with concrete properties then a speaker can ‘translate’ his/ her concrete perceptions with his learned meaning function φ into a composed expression using universal expressions.  In such a situation where the speaker is  part of  the real situation S he/ she  can recognize that the given situation is an  instance of the abstracted structures encoded in the used expression. And recognizing this being an instance interprets the universal expression in a way  that makes the universal expression fitting to a real given situation. And thereby the universal expression is transformed by interpretation with φ into a concrete decidable expression.

SUMMING UP

Thus the decisive moment of turning undecidable universal expressions U(U)E into decidable concrete expressions (D)CE is a human actor A behaving as a speaker-hearer of the used  language L. Without a speaker-hearer every universal expressions is undefined and neither true nor false.

makedecidable :  S x Ahum x E —> E x {true, false}

This reads as follows: If you want to know whether an expression E is concrete and as being concrete is  ‘true’ or ‘false’ then ask  a human actor Ahum which is part of a concrete situation S and the human actor shall  answer whether the expression E can be interpreted such that E can be classified being either ‘true’ or ‘false’.

The function ‘makedecidable()’ is therefore  the description (like a ‘recipe’) of a real process in the real world with real actors. The important factors in this description are the meaning functions inside the participating human actors. Although it is not possible to describe these meaning functions directly one can check their behavior and one can define an abstract model which describes the observable behavior of speaker-hearer of the language L. This is an empirical model and represents the typical case of behavioral models used in psychology, biology, sociology etc.

SOURCES

[1] Jakob Johann Freiherr von Uexküll (German: [ˈʏkskʏl])(1864 – 1944) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Johann_von_Uexk%C3%BCll

[2] Jakob von Uexküll, 1909, Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: J. Springer. (Download: https://ia802708.us.archive.org/13/items/umweltundinnenwe00uexk/umweltundinnenwe00uexk.pdf )

[3] Wikipedia EN, Speech acts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

[4] Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein ( 1889 – 1951): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

[5] Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953: Philosophische Untersuchungen [PU], 1953: Philosophical Investigations [PI], translated by G. E. M. Anscombe /* For more details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations */