Mutual Expressions Between 4 Spaces

Yucong Duan

International Standardization Committee of Networked DIKWP for Artificial Intelligence Evaluation(DIKWP-SC)

World Artificial Consciousness CIC(WAC)

World Conference on Artificial Consciousness(WCAC)

(Email: duanyucong@hotmail.com)

Introduction

In our previous exploration, we investigated the mutual expressing capabilities among Conceptual Space (ConC), Semantic Space (SemA), Cognitive Space (ConN), and Conscious Space, using mathematical representations. To clarify and summarize the conclusions, we will present the key findings in tables, enhancing understanding and highlighting important points.

Overview of Mutual Expressing Capabilities

We will use tables to:

1. Summarize how each space can express and be expressed by the others.

2. Highlight the mathematical representations involved.

3. Clarify the capabilities and limitations of these expressions.

Table 1: Mutual Expressions Between Spaces

From Space	To Space	Mathematical Representation	Capabilities	Limitations
ConC	SemA	Mapping Function: ϕ:C→VSemA\phi: C \rightarrow V_{\text{SemA}}ϕ:C→VSemA​	- Assigns meanings to concepts- Enables semantic operations	- May not capture all nuances- Potential information loss in inverse mapping
SemA	ConC	Extraction Function: ψ:VSemA→C\psi: V_{\text{SemA}} \rightarrow Cψ:VSemA​→C	- Retrieves concepts from meanings- Facilitates interpretation	- Ambiguity if multiple concepts share similar meanings- Loss of distinct identities
SemA	ConN	Cognitive Functions: fi:VSemA→VConNf_i: V_{\text{SemA}} \rightarrow V_{\text{ConN}}fi​:VSemA​→VConN​	- Processes meanings for reasoning- Enables cognitive operations	- Complex transformations- Differences in representations
ConN	SemA	Semantic Generation: g:VConN→VSemAg: V_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow V_{\text{SemA}}g:VConN​→VSemA​	- Generates new meanings- Updates semantic knowledge	- Cognitive states may not map directly to semantics- Potential loss of context
ConN	ConC	Conceptualization Function: κ:FConN→C\kappa: F_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow Cκ:FConN​→C	- Abstracts cognitive processes into concepts- Enriches Conceptual Space	- May omit procedural details- Static concepts may not capture dynamics
ConC	ConN	Operationalization: Concepts guide function definitions	- Defines cognitive functions based on concepts- Ensures alignment	- Limited by conceptual definitions- May lack flexibility
ConN	Conscious Space	Emergence Function: Φ:FConN→SConscious\Phi: F_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{\text{Conscious}}Φ:FConN​→SConscious​	- Cognitive processes lead to conscious states- Supports awareness	- Non-linear relationships- Not all processes lead to consciousness
Conscious Space	ConN	Modulation Function: Θ:SConscious→FConN\Theta: \mathcal{S}_{\text{Conscious}} \rightarrow F_{\text{ConN}}Θ:SConscious​→FConN​	- Conscious states influence cognition- Adjusts processing strategies	- Subjectivity makes modeling challenging- Complexity in mappings
SemA	Conscious Space	Evocation Function: Semantic content evokes experiences	- Meanings induce conscious states- Enhances engagement	- Varies between individuals- Hard to quantify
Conscious Space	SemA	Reflection Function: Experiences encoded into semantics	- Translates experiences into meanings- Facilitates communication	- Subjective experiences may be difficult to express- Potential loss of depth

Table 2: Mathematical Functions and Their Roles

Function	Definition	Role in Mutual Expression
$\varphi$	ϕ:C→VSemA\phi: C \rightarrow V_{\text{SemA}}ϕ:C→VSemA​	Maps concepts to semantic vectors in SemA
$\psi$	ψ:VSemA→C\psi: V_{\text{SemA}} \rightarrow Cψ:VSemA​→C	Extracts concepts from semantic representations
fif_ifi​	fi:VSemA→VConNf_i: V_{\text{SemA}} \rightarrow V_{\text{ConN}}fi​:VSemA​→VConN​	Cognitive functions processing semantic inputs
$g$	g:VConN→VSemAg: V_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow V_{\text{SemA}}g:VConN​→VSemA​	Generates semantic outputs from cognitive processes
$\kappa$	κ:FConN→C\kappa: F_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow Cκ:FConN​→C	Abstracts cognitive functions into concepts in ConC
$\Phi$	Φ:FConN→SConscious\Phi: F_{\text{ConN}} \rightarrow \mathcal{S}_{\text{Conscious}}Φ:FConN​→SConscious​	Emergence of conscious states from cognitive functions
$\Theta$	Θ:SConscious→FConN\Theta: \mathcal{S}_{\text{Conscious}} \rightarrow F_{\text{ConN}}Θ:SConscious​→FConN​	Modulation of cognitive functions by conscious states
EA→BE_{A \rightarrow B}EA→B​	Mutual Expression Operator: $A\to B$	General representation of expressing elements from space A in space B

Table 3: Capabilities and Limitations Summary

Space Interaction	Capabilities	Limitations
ConC ↔ SemA	- Concepts gain meanings- Meanings relate to concepts	- Possible ambiguity in mappings- Loss of specificity
SemA ↔ ConN	- Meanings inform cognitive processes- Cognition generates new meanings	- Complex transformations- Potential mismatch in representations
ConN ↔ ConC	- Cognitive processes abstracted into concepts- Concepts guide cognition	- Static concepts may not capture dynamics- Abstraction may omit details
ConN ↔ Conscious Space	- Cognition leads to awareness- Consciousness influences cognition	- Non-linear and emergent relationships- Difficult to model precisely
SemA ↔ Conscious Space	- Meanings evoke experiences- Experiences encoded into meanings	- Subjectivity challenges- Hard to quantify experiences
Purpose Across Spaces	- Aligns cognitive processes with goals- Influences operations across spaces	- Dynamic and evolving- Ensuring consistent expression is complex

Clarifications and Important Points

1. Mutual Expressions Are Not Always Bidirectional:

• Some mappings are more straightforward in one direction than the other.

• For example, mapping concepts to meanings ($\varphi$) is often more precise than extracting concepts from meanings ($\psi$).

2. Emergence and Non-Linearity:

• Conscious states emerge from complex cognitive processes.

• The relationship between cognitive functions and consciousness is non-linear and may involve thresholds or critical levels of complexity.

3. Subjectivity and Variability:

• Conscious experiences are subjective and can vary significantly between individuals or systems.

• Modeling subjective experiences mathematically is challenging due to their qualitative nature.

4. Information Loss and Ambiguity:

• Transformations between spaces can lead to loss of information or introduce ambiguity.

• Ensuring fidelity in mutual expressions requires careful design of mappings and consideration of context.

5. Complexity of Mappings:

• High-dimensional spaces and complex functions can make mappings computationally intensive.

• Simplifying assumptions or approximations may be necessary but can affect accuracy.

6. Feedback Mechanisms Enhance Expression:

• Incorporating feedback loops allows for adjustments based on outcomes.

• Reinforcement learning and adaptive algorithms can improve mutual expressing capabilities.

Strategies to Address Limitations (Table 4)

Challenge	Strategy	Expected Outcome
Complexity of Mappings	- Use dimensionality reduction- Employ efficient algorithms	- Reduced computational load- Faster processing
Ambiguity in Transformations	- Include contextual information- Utilize probabilistic models	- Improved disambiguation- Better handling of uncertainties
Information Loss	- Design bijective mappings where possible- Implement error-correction mechanisms	- Enhanced fidelity- Reduced loss of critical information
Modeling Subjectivity	- Use fuzzy logic- Incorporate qualitative data	- Better representation of subjective experiences
Emergent Properties	- Study emergent phenomena in complex systems- Use simulation and modeling	- Deeper understanding- Ability to predict emergent behaviors

Conclusions Summarized

• Interconnectedness of Spaces:

• The four spaces are interconnected through mathematical mappings and functions.

• Each space can express elements of others to varying degrees.

• Mathematical Modeling Provides a Framework:

• Functions and mappings offer a way to formalize the relationships.

• While helpful, they may not capture all nuances, especially emergent and subjective properties.

• Limitations Highlight the Need for Advanced Approaches:

• The challenges identified indicate that traditional mathematical models may be insufficient.

• Advanced methods, including machine learning and complex system theories, may be required.

• Understanding Mutual Expressions Is Crucial for AI Development:

• Insights into how spaces express each other's content inform the design of more sophisticated AI systems.

• Emphasizes the importance of integrative approaches combining multiple disciplines.

Final Remarks

• Tables Enhance Clarity:

• By organizing information in tables, we can more easily compare and contrast the capabilities and limitations.

• Tables help in identifying patterns and relationships that might be less obvious in textual descriptions.

• Ongoing Research Is Needed:

• The field is evolving, and continuous investigation is necessary to refine models and approaches.

• Collaboration across fields like mathematics, cognitive science, and AI is essential.

• Ethical Considerations Remain Important:

• As we develop systems with advanced cognitive and possibly conscious capabilities, ethical implications must be considered.

• Transparency in modeling and a thorough understanding of limitations are crucial.

References

• Cognitive Science and AI Modeling:

• Anderson, J. R. (2014). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. Worth Publishers.

• Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson.

• Mathematical Foundations:

• Strang, G. (2016). Introduction to Linear Algebra. Wellesley-Cambridge Press.

• Kolmogorov, A. N., & Fomin, S. V. (1975). Introductory Real Analysis. Dover Publications.

• Complex Systems and Emergence:

• Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Oxford University Press.

• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.

Note: The mathematical representations and models provided are conceptual and serve to illustrate the relationships among the spaces. Real-world implementations may require more sophisticated and detailed mathematical treatments.

References for Further Reading

1. International Standardization Committee of Networked DIKWP for Artificial Intelligence Evaluation (DIKWP-SC),World Association of Artificial Consciousness(WAC),World Conference on Artificial Consciousness(WCAC). Standardization of DIKWP Semantic Mathematics of International Test and Evaluation Standards for Artificial Intelligence based on Networked Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom-Purpose (DIKWP ) Model. October 2024 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26233.89445 .  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384637381_Standardization_of_DIKWP_Semantic_Mathematics_of_International_Test_and_Evaluation_Standards_for_Artificial_Intelligence_based_on_Networked_Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom-Purpose_DIKWP_Model

2. Duan, Y. (2023). The Paradox of Mathematics in AI Semantics. Proposed by Prof. Yucong Duan:" As Prof. Yucong Duan proposed the Paradox of Mathematics as that current mathematics will not reach the goal of supporting real AI development since it goes with the routine of based on abstraction of real semantics but want to reach the reality of semantics. ".

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自段玉聪科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3429562-1458207.html

上一篇：Expressing Capabilities Among 4 Spaces with DIKWP Math（初学者版）
下一篇：Capabilities of Conceptual Space, Semantic Space, Cogn（初学者版）