Databases as objects

Alexandr Savinov wrote:
> topmind schrieb:
> > Are you saying that we couldn't build a computer/bot smarter than us
> > (without using evolution such as genetic algs.)? I don't think there
> > is any proven law that says this.
>
> Yes, I think that creating something always means copying or modelling
> part of us without complexity increase. So we only express ourselves in
> the things we create which therefore cannot be smarter. I seriously
> doubt that such types of statements can be formally proven. It is too
> general and therefore it is part of our view of the world.

We can build a Chess machine that can probably beat any human alive.
Thus, at least in specific areas exceeding the creator is possible.

>
> >> Indeed, in order to build a
> >> house, this house must be built in our head and then we need to build
> >> appropriate tools. So what we create corresponds to our own complexity
> >> and it is not possible to create more complex thing than we are
> >> themselves. If it is so, then it is not possible to consciously create
> >> an intelligent system (smarter than its creator). But intelligent system
> >> can arise as a result of its own evolution, i.e., due to some other laws
> >> and partially because of the activity of existing systems and the
> >> existing environment stack (biosphere etc.) In other words, intelligence
> >> can appear at the top of the existing organization stack where previous
> >> elements are unaware of the next elements. If we assume that we can
> >> create a more intelligent system then the consequence would be that
> >> monkeys created humans.
> >
> > So *only* evolution can create intelligence? This is only speculation.
> > I would tend to disagree. If we figured out how the brain worked, I
> > think we could refine the principles it is based on and improve it.
>
> If we discover how the brain works then we will cease to be humans.

Huh? You are getting too poetic for me.

> If
> we understand how we can enhance the brain then again we simultaneously
> change ourselves. When monkeys understood that they are monkeys then
> they turned into humans. When we understand how our brain works we will
> not be humans anymore.
>
> --
> http://conceptoriented.com

-T-

Thomas Gagne wrote:

> So when we talk about semantics and how relational databases can test
> them, and that maintaining the semantic correctness is a responsibility
> of the DB, implemented via , that responsibility is supported by OO's
> concept of high cohesion.
>
> As fascinating as the search for intelligence is, it wasn't really where
> we started. But good stuff!
>


Yes exactly. We should ask "What is Meaning?".

To me meaning doesn't necessarily imply (much) intelligence.
A better indicator of meaning is "recognition". Recognition
by definition refers to recognizing something that recurs.

When a bird signals the threat alert to its flock, this is
not really very intelligent; it is merely a reaction. Yet
that signal does have a meaning, which the flock will recognize.
Why? Because it *repeatedly* happens when a dangerous predator
appears nearby.

So programs create meaning by recognizing recurring patterns
of data, and reacting to them in predictable, repeatable ways.
This fact causes us humans to 'understand' what the computer
is telling us.

When the computer says "DANGER: Core Meltdown", we understand
we better run, because the computer does not produce strings
like that randomly, but in a repeatable manner, only when there
in fact is a meltdown. If the computer malfunctions and gives
us false alarms, AND if thus happens repeatedly, we say its
messages are meaningless. This is the case with malfunctioning,
lunatic brains in general.

The fact that we can program computers to react predictably
to patterns of data, allows computers -with their programs-
to create meaning. And finally then, it is really the
programmers that create the programs who create 'meaning'
in this manner.


-Panu Viljamaa

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:33:07 -0400, panu wrote:

> To me meaning doesn't necessarily imply (much) intelligence.
> A better indicator of meaning is "recognition". Recognition
> by definition refers to recognizing something that recurs.
>
> When a bird signals the threat alert to its flock, this is
> not really very intelligent; it is merely a reaction. Yet
> that signal does have a meaning, which the flock will recognize.
> Why? Because it *repeatedly* happens when a dangerous predator
> appears nearby.
>
> So programs create meaning by recognizing recurring patterns
> of data, and reacting to them in predictable, repeatable ways.
> This fact causes us humans to 'understand' what the computer
> is telling us.
>
> When the computer says "DANGER: Core Meltdown", we understand
> we better run, because the computer does not produce strings
> like that randomly, but in a repeatable manner, only when there
> in fact is a meltdown. If the computer malfunctions and gives
> us false alarms, AND if thus happens repeatedly, we say its
> messages are meaningless. This is the case with malfunctioning,
> lunatic brains in general.
>
> The fact that we can program computers to react predictably
> to patterns of data, allows computers -with their programs-
> to create meaning. And finally then, it is really the
> programmers that create the programs who create 'meaning'
> in this manner.

I don't really want to object it ... just observe, that you have replaced
the problem:

A) S : signal, M : meaning,

find F : S -> M

with the problem

B) S : signal, R : reaction, T : time
(S x R x T)^n : observed series of pairs (Pi, Ri) at the time points Ti

find predictor function P : T->(S, R)

P.S. The predictor function is to be found in some class of functions as an
approximation using some distance (like least squares, for example) = you
have some a priori knowledge about how your universe functions = I guess,
you know what it all does mean! (:-))

P.P.S. Ancient Greeks knew that orbits of the planets must surely be
circles...

P.P.P.S. As for false alarms, how do you know if an alarm is false? (:-))

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

I tend to understand the word "meaning" same as panu as related to
recognition of abstract patterns.

However I would not employ the word for an automaton.

If we extrapollate that an automaton "understands" meaning by reacting
to a recognized pattern, this must be some form of anthropomorphism: we
are in fact building the meaning in our mind by analyzing the reaction.

My intuition is that we can understand meaning only when we have
abstractions to describe abstractions, in a Godel like fashion.

To me this is the meaning of meaning, the abstractions of abstractions.

Nicolas


Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:33:07 -0400, panu wrote:
>
>> To me meaning doesn't necessarily imply (much) intelligence.
>> A better indicator of meaning is "recognition". Recognition
>> by definition refers to recognizing something that recurs.
>>
>> When a bird signals the threat alert to its flock, this is
>> not really very intelligent; it is merely a reaction. Yet
>> that signal does have a meaning, which the flock will recognize.
>> Why? Because it *repeatedly* happens when a dangerous predator
>> appears nearby.
>>
>> So programs create meaning by recognizing recurring patterns
>> of data, and reacting to them in predictable, repeatable ways.
>> This fact causes us humans to 'understand' what the computer
>> is telling us.
>>
>> When the computer says "DANGER: Core Meltdown", we understand
>> we better run, because the computer does not produce strings
>> like that randomly, but in a repeatable manner, only when there
>> in fact is a meltdown. If the computer malfunctions and gives
>> us false alarms, AND if thus happens repeatedly, we say its
>> messages are meaningless. This is the case with malfunctioning,
>> lunatic brains in general.
>>
>> The fact that we can program computers to react predictably
>> to patterns of data, allows computers -with their programs-
>> to create meaning. And finally then, it is really the
>> programmers that create the programs who create 'meaning'
>> in this manner.
>
> I don't really want to object it ... just observe, that you have replaced
> the problem:
>
> A) S : signal, M : meaning,
>
> find F : S -> M
>
> with the problem
>
> B) S : signal, R : reaction, T : time
> (S x R x T)^n : observed series of pairs (Pi, Ri) at the time points Ti
>
> find predictor function P : T->(S, R)
>
> P.S. The predictor function is to be found in some class of functions as an
> approximation using some distance (like least squares, for example) = you
> have some a priori knowledge about how your universe functions = I guess,
> you know what it all does mean! (:-))
>
> P.P.S. Ancient Greeks knew that orbits of the planets must surely be
> circles...
>
> P.P.P.S. As for false alarms, how do you know if an alarm is false? (:-))
>

Thomas Gagne <tgagne{}wide-open-west.com> wrote:

>I was re-reading some of the messages under the subject "Databases as
>objects" and ran across something Frans Bouma wrote:
>
>Frans Bouma wrote:
>> Thomas Gagne wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> But to the point, if a program was able to store improperly-formatted
>>> zipcode inside the DB then whose fault is that?
>>>
>>
>> what's an improperly formatted zipcode? In the US, you have 5 digits,
>> in the netherlands you have 4 digits and 2 characters. A zipcode of
>> 1234 AA is properly formatted for a dutch user of the application, but
>> not correctly formatted for the US user of the program. Hence: context.
>>
>> This thus means that if the db stores '1234AA', it can do so, and the
>> dutch user will happily use it. The US user can't because for the US
>> user it's just data, 1234 and 2 characters, it's not information
>> (zipcode).
>If you think about it, neither zip code means anything to the database.
>They're simply characters in a field. It's the /reader/ who derives
>information from them. The only way a DB might know something about zip
>codes is if the field were a FK to known zip codes, then the DB might
>assert referential integrity, but still know nothing of the meaning of
>"1234 AA." Only the post office and its customers are impacted by its
>meaning.
>
>So that takes us back to whether or not the database is correct beyond
>its integrity checks. If it stores exactly what it should store then it
>is correct. An incorrect or improperly formatted zip code isn't the
>database's responsibility if that's what a human or application told it
>to store. A DB wouldn't know it was correct or not until it tried
>delivering the mail--or performing some function with the data.

With your statement above.. what exactly is a DB? Can you give me a
definition of one? If a database stored metadata and understood the
semantics of zip codes, then couldn't it do that? I guess it depends on
your concrete definition of "what exactly is a DB", because otherwise I
believe your statement is entirelly incorrect -- surely a DB could do this.

I'm also going to preface, that a lot of what you talk about has a lot of
overlap with semantic technology. Have a look at the W3C too, about
sementic web technologies and the like, there is a lot of evolution going on
in these concepts and related technology.

>This is the same problem with adding apples and oranges, or USD and
>CAD. Where I able to store $1USD and $2CAD in an attribute that by
>itself isn't necessarily wrong. It may, however, be an inability of a
>function to find meaning to adding them together, or the unwillingness
>of a bank to ACH 1USD+1CAD, even though people familiar with both
>algebra and currency codes recognize exactly what the expression is and
>what it means. After crossing the border to Windsor I may end up with
>both USD and CAD in my wallet.
>
>This reinforces the DB can be responsible for structural, type, and
>referential integrity, but it can not give meaning to its data.

Here, again, I wholeheartedly disagree.. While most commonly used databases
in existance today don't provide any kind of notional semantics in this
regard, there isn't any reason why such a system couldn't exist. Perhaps
you wouldn't call such a system a DB, but again perhaps that depends on your
definition of a DB. :-)

Cheers, Ian

>"Incorrect" data, having passed the three tests the DB can apply, is
>only incorrect to those is has meaning for.
>
>So this takes us back to our responsibility as programmers and designers
>to guard our database's integrity. In the same way OO programmers guard
>their objects' integrity by restricting access to object state, why
>would they regard a DB's state any less by allowing any and all to
>manipulate rows and attributes however and wherever they wish?
---
http://www.upright.net/ian/

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
....
> P.P.P.S. As for false alarms, how do you know if an alarm is false? (:-))

It's all about repeatability. If the computer gives alarms
randomly, they false statistically. If it gives a specific
alarm always when a specific set of conditions occurs, then
that specific alarm means that specific set of conditions
has occurred. That gives the alarm-message it meaning.
This happens whether there are humans around or not, as
long as there are observers - who again will react in a
specific way, thus 'amplifying' the meaning of the alarm.

-Panu Viljamaa

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:39:02 -0400, Panu wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> ....
>> P.P.P.S. As for false alarms, how do you know if an alarm is false? (:-))
>
> It's all about repeatability. If the computer gives alarms
> randomly, they false statistically. If it gives a specific
> alarm always when a specific set of conditions occurs, then
> that specific alarm means that specific set of conditions
> has occurred. That gives the alarm-message it meaning.
> This happens whether there are humans around or not, as
> long as there are observers - who again will react in a
> specific way, thus 'amplifying' the meaning of the alarm.

Yes and the problem is to recognize the given [computational] state as an
alarm. That brings you back to the problem of meaning. Red Arial 60 pt text
= alarm? You have to classify [worse, to cluster] your messages before you
can say that they repeat. Then you have to classify the sequence of states
following a message. I.e. reactor meltdown = the alarm wasn't false.

This adds a lot of new [complex] concepts, like time, cause and effect. Are
they essential for "meaning," BTW?

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de