[Heartlogic-dev] Re: parameterizing

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 08:29:23PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> Sorry, I realize you really want a response on something.  I'm gonna
> guess this is what you want a response on.

You guessed it.  ;-)

> I mean we can have this event:
> 
> Daddy gives Hot Coco to Toby.
> 
> We can ask :
> 
> 1) How does Daddy appraise this?
> 2) How does Toby appraise this?
> 
> 3) What would X predict (mindread) the answer to 1 or 2?
> 
> X can equal a third party, Daddy or Toby.
> 
> Am I getting warmer?

Yes, almost.  Let's double check with more examples.  Perhaps this is
a hassel, but this is the _last_ parameter which I want to add.

> Maybe you can help me by generating enough examples to motivate all three
> of APPRAISING-AGENT, OPINER, and POINT-OF-VIEW.

OK, I'm going to review the parameters we have identified so far.  I
am also attaching a longer document which shows most of our detailed
discussion up to this point.

PARTICIPATING-AGENTS: Associated with each appraisal are two
intentional agents.

APPRAISING-AGENT: Who is appraising the situation?  An appraisal is
the appraising-agent's opinion about or construal of the situation
cue.

MINDREADER: Who is mindreading the appraisal?  This may be a third
party, a computer model (KM or otherwise), Daddy, or Toby.

Now I'm going to present my proposal as best I can.  After that, there
are some parity checks to see whether you have understood it properly.

> ...sorry, I'm pressed for time.  I read this just now like 4 times and
> I feel that something is missing.  I feel like I've almost got what you
> are pushing for but not quite.  Maybe what I don't see is how
> POINT-OF-VIEW is different than APPRAISING-AGENT.

My proposal for adding one more parameter is to _split_
APPRAISING-AGENT into two parameters: OPINER and POINT-OF-VIEW.

Given the situation cue:

  Daddy gives Hot Coco to Toby.

  PARTICIPATING-AGENTS = Daddy, Toby

Here are the possible appraisals (using the new parameter scheme):

1. OPINER        = Daddy
   POINT-OF-VIEW = Daddy
   English = How does Daddy feel about giving Hot Coco to Toby?

2. OPINER        = Daddy
   POINT-OF-VIEW = Toby
   English = How does Daddy imagine that Toby feels about Daddy
             giving Hot Coco to Toby?

3. OPINER        = Toby
   POINT-OF-VIEW = Toby
   English = How does Toby feel about receiving Hot Coco from Daddy?
             
4. OPINER        = Toby
   POINT-OF-VIEW = Daddy
   English = How does Toby imagine Daddy feels about giving Hot Coco
             to Toby?

OK, now for some parity checks.

Parity check: Before we split APPRAISING-AGENT into OPINER and
POINT-OF-VIEW, we only have appraisals #1 and #3 where the OPINER and
POINT-OF-VIEW refer to the same PARTICIPATING-AGENT.

Parity check: The MINDREADER parameter is unchanged.

  If the appraisal is #3 and MINDREADER = KM then we still ask,
  "Mr. Computer Model, how does Toby feel about receiving Hot Coco from
  Daddy?"

  If the appraisal is #4 and MINDREADER = WLJ then we still ask, "WLJ,
  how does Toby imagine Daddy feels about giving Hot Coco to Toby?"

Parity check: We no longer have a parameter APPRAISING-AGENT.

Parity check: For full compatibility with your dissertation, we
make the following substitution:

Change

  APPRAISING-AGENT = X

to

  OPINER = X
  POINT-OF-VIEW = X

Make sense?

Hopefully you have grasped the proposal now.  If you prefer a
different terminology than OPINER / POINT-OF-VIEW then this is a good
time to change.

-- 
A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://openheartlogic.org

context
Description: Text document