[Prev][Next][Index]

CSLI Calendar, March 31, 3:22


       C S L I   C A L E N D A R   O F   P U B L I C   E V E N T S
_____________________________________________________________________________
31 March 1988                      Stanford                    Vol. 3, No. 22
_____________________________________________________________________________

     A weekly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
     Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
                              ____________
	    CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR THIS THURSDAY, 31 March 1988

   12 noon		TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       Reading: "Learning at the Knowledge Level"
     Seminar Room  	by Thomas G. Dietterich
			Discussion led by Kurt Konolige
			(konolige@bishop.ai.sri.com)
			Abstract below

   2:15 p.m.		CSLI Seminar
     New building	Panel Discussion on Compositionality
     Conference Room	Per-Kristian Halvorsen (halvorsen.pa@xerox.com), 
			Stanley Peters (peters@russell.stanford.edu), and
   			Craige Roberts (croberts@csli.stanford.edu)
			Abstract in last week's Calendar
			
   3:30 p.m.		Tea
     New building
     Courtyard			
                             --------------
	     CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, 7 April 1988

   12 noon		TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       Reading: "The Formal Semantics of Point of View"
     Seminar Room  	by Jonathan E. Mitchell
			Discussion led by Syun Tutiya
			(tutiya@russell.stanford.edu)
			Abstract below

   2:15 p.m.		CSLI Seminar
     New building	The Texture of Intelligence
     Conference Room	Alexis Manaster-Ramer
   			(amr@csli.stanford.edu)
			Abstract in next week's Calendar
			
   3:30 p.m.		Tea
     New building
     Courtyard			
                             --------------
			      ANNOUNCEMENTS

   Don't forget our celebration of the new building on Thursday, March
   31.  Kurt Konolige will lead a TINLunch on "Learning at the Knowledge
   Level" by Tom Dietterich; and Stanley Peters, Kris Halvorsen, and Craige
   Roberts will give a mini-symposium on compositionality.  Beginning at
   3:30 we will have an extended tea complete with hors d'oeuvres,
   drinks, and a jazz band.

			     --------------
			THIS WEEK'S CSLI TINLUNCH
	       Reading: "Learning at the Knowledge Level"
			 by Thomas G. Dietterich
		     Discussion led by Kurt Konolige
		      (konolige@bishop.ai.sri.com)
				March 31

   When Newell introduced the concept of the knowledge level as a useful
   level of description for computer systems, he focused on the
   representation of knowledge.  This paper applies the knowledge level
   notion to the problem of knowledge acquisition.  Two interesting
   issues arise.  First, some existing machine learning programs appear
   to be completely static when viewed at the knowledge level.  These
   programs improve their performance without changing their 'knowledge.'
   Second, the behavior of some other machine learning programs cannot be
   predicted or described at the knowledge level.  These programs take
   unjustified inductive leaps.  The first programs are called symbol
   level learning (SLL) programs; the second, nondeductive knowledge
   level learning (NKLL) programs.  The paper analyzes both of these
   classes of learning programs and speculates on the possibility of
   developing coherent theories of each.  A theory of symbol level
   learning is sketched, and some reasons are presented for believing
   that a theory of NKLL will be difficult to obtain.

			     --------------
			NEXT WEEK'S CSLI TINLUNCH
	    Reading: "The Formal Semantics of Point of View"
			 by Jonathan E. Mitchell
       PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of
		      Massachusetts, Amherst, 1986
		      Discussion led by Syun Tutiya
		       (tutiya@csli.stanford.edu)
				 April 7

   Some sentences are ambiguous in an interesting way.  When you tell
   your friend standing across a table that the cat is in front of the
   table, the cat could be either between you and the table or between
   the table and her.  You might be tempted to say the sentence you have
   just used should be interpreted relative to the point of view.
   Problems concerning the concept point of view are unlikely to be
   covered by the conventional notions in terms of which indexical
   expressions have been dealt with in the tradition of formal semantics,
   since the point of view normally is not expressed as a constituent of
   a sentence used.  There are also some languages in which the concept
   point of view plays such an important role that you might think any
   selection of a lexical item refers to the point of view from which the
   speaker is speaking.  In Japanese, for example, it is said that you
   have to use different words to describe the same transference of a
   property depending on from which point of view you are speaking, the
   donor's, the donee's, or yours.  There are a lot more sentences in
   English and a lot more languages which are relevant to the problem of
   point of view, or perspectivity.

   It is natural, therefore, the concept point of view deserve linguists'
   attention.  But once you try to come up with a formal treatment of the
   concept which is consistent with linguistic intuition and
   philosophical insight, you are bound to be involved in the discussion
   of the formal semantics of belief sentences, of the nature of mental
   states, and the belief de se.  Mitchell seems to have decided to take
   on the whole job and concludes, among other things, that "the notion
   of self-ascription is central to the explanation of perspectivity in
   language." This led him to the idea of representing, within situation
   semantics, the interpretation of a sentence in a bifurcated formalism
   by ascribing to the sentence both the external and the internal
   contents.  The external content of a sentence is almost the same as
   the propositional content or proposition expressed of an utterance of
   the sentence.  Well, what is the internal content, then?  This is the
   very question I want to be answered in the discussion.

   The paper is naturally very long so I will compile some excerpts from
   the dissertation to be picked up.  Please be warned that my selection
   of the parts to be read does not necessarily reflect the ultimate
   claims of the dissertation.