Special Issue Nature Form And Meaning: Fill & Download for Free

Obviously it depends on what you mean by "expert system". When I think of software that has been classified this way, I generally think of pure single-strategy reasoning systems in which all knowledge takes the form of rules. That definitely does not describe Watson. Watson does have many, many rules in it. For example, the parser used in Watson (ESG) is rule-based; it uses rules to do things like decide what the subject of a sentence is, or decide what noun some adjective is modifying. That information is used (directly and indirectly) by many other algorithms to help find and score answers. Some of those algorithms also have rules. However, no single answer scoring component has absolute authority over what answer is selected; instead the conclusions of each scoring component are treated as "features", i.e., potential indicators of correctness. A statistical model learned from a large volume of training data is then used to classify answers as right and wrong.Many people see a description like that and conclude that the Watson project is primarily about statistics. However, I don't think that is very accurate either. In fact, the primary statistical technique used to combine the various features is logistic regression, a well-established technique that existed long before Watson did. There are some innovations in the way in which logistic regression is used in Watson, but the vast majority of the work that was done on the Watson project focuses on techniques for finding candidate answers and computing feature values for those candidate answers. Some of Watson's features are very simple, e.g., does the answer frequently appear in next close to various words from the question. However, others are derived from much more sophisticated natural-language processing, knowledge representation & reasoning, etc. When the features, collectively, provide a large amount of usefulinformation about the candidates, logistic regression does a good job combiningthat information to draw useful conclusions. More than anything else, Watson is a massively multi-strategy system.I agree with the point by an anon. user (in another response to this question) that real-world tasks like medical diagnosis include new challenges that Jeopardy! clues do not. However, I think the crisp distinction that poster makes between "new" and "existing" knowledge is not the core issue here. For example, a patient who lives in the northeastern U.S., who has a circular rash, fatigue, and headaches may well have Lyme disease. This is not "new" knowledge; it is well documented in medical text books, etc. However, a patient record is a much bigger, more complex "question" than a Jeopardy! clue. It often requires much more specialized expertise to address and often requires a more complex, nuanced answer (and may provide little value if not accompanied by an explanation plus supporting evidence). We are actively working on these challenges and hope to have compelling results to present in the near future.Finally, I agree with Marcus Endicott that our upcoming journal special issue is a good place to get a very detailed description of the Watson 1.0 system that defeated human champions at Jeopardy! (and that forms the foundations for our ongoing work). The special issue, "This is Watson", will appear in the IBM Journal of Research and Development (including IBM Systems Journal) and is expected to be available April 3, 2012.

Point 1) China is 'running away' from the UN and the Philippines request for arbitration.The funny thing is that the Philippines request for arbitration actually has nothing to do with ownership of any of the islands within the South China Sea. It would be much less funny if we thought that this missunderstanding was intentional on the part of the Philippines, in which case that would mean that they are trying to manipulate public support.Anyway, here is a link to China's official response to the arbitration, and a quote that neatly summarizes the issue:China's position paper on South China Sea13. As far as the present arbitration is concerned, without first having determined China' s territorial sovereignty over the maritime features in the South China Sea, the Arbitral Tribunal will not be in a position to determine the extent to which China may claim maritime rights in the South China Sea pursuant to the Convention, not to mention whether China' s claims exceed the extent allowed under the Convention. But the issue of territorial sovereignty falls beyond the purview of the Convention.14. The Philippines is well aware that a tribunal established under Article 287 and Annex VII of the Convention has no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty disputes. In an attempt to circumvent this jurisdictional hurdle and fabricate a basis for institution of arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedly professed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination of territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries, but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China' s maritime claims with the provisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty over those maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea.Point 2) The Philippines have a historic claim within the South China Sea.The important thing to note here is that the Philippine government doesn't make such a claim. Only the well meaning keyboard warriors.Just so that it is clear, the islands are not mentioned in any of the following:Article 1 of the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, entitled "The National Territory"The 1935 Constitution | GOVPHPhilippine Republic Act No. 3046, entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines", 1961,R.A. 3046Treaty of Paris (10th Dec 1898) Specifically: Article IIITreaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898The treaty of Washington (7th of Nov 1900)Treaty between the Kingdom Spain and the United States of America for cession of outlying islands of the Philippines [1900] | GOVPHConvention between the United States of America and Great Britain delimiting the boundary between the Philippine archipelago and the State of North Borneo (2nd Jan 1930)Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain delimiting the boundary between the Philippine archipelago and the State of North Borneo [1930] | GOVPHA visual representation (map) of the territory of the Philippines. Showing the limit of Filipino territory for various treaties and their later claim of the Spratly Islands (aka: Kalayaan) in 1978.Point 3) China's artificial islands are being built illegally.This is pretty straight forward.If China is the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then the land reclamation islegal.If China is not the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then the land reclamation is illegal.on that same noteIf China is the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then China's presence in the area is legal.If China is not the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then China's presence in the area is illegal.This fact about legality can be verified by readying UNCLOS: Part V Article 60.1In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:(a) artificial islands;(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.And please take note that this is still true regardless of if the artificial islands are built on top of existing islands or if they are built on top of reefs and rocks.The only requirement is that it is within that country's EEZ.Point 4) China's artificial islands are within the Philippines EEZ.China's artificial islands are within 200nm of the Philippines. And, in accordance with article 57 of UNCLOS:The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.But.....A countries EEZ can only extend UPTO 200nm.UNCLOS: Part II Article 15Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.Meaning that, if China is the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then the artificially created islands are:Inside China's EEZWithin 200nm of the Philippines, ButOutside of the Philippines EEZPoint 5) Island building does not equal ownership.Many people like to point out UNCLOS, Article 60.88. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.This is completely true, the artificial islands can not be used to claim territory within the South China Sea. However, the artificial islands can be legally built within an existing claim.In other words:An existing claim supports the construction of IslandsNOTThe construction of Islands supports an existing claim.Point 6) The islands are more than 200nm from China.If China is the rightful owner of the naturally formed islands, then the islands are within 200nm of Chinese territory because they would be Chinese territory themselves.However, it is still accurate to say that the islands are more than 200nm from Mainland China.Point 7) Spratly islands are mostly rocks, and rocks can’t generate EEZ.Yes, Some (actually most) of the islands are actually rocksand yes under UNCLOS Article 121.3, rocks cannot be used to claim maritime rights like natural islands.However, under UNCLOS article 46 (b)"archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.So if these groups of islands and rocks have historically been regarded as a single entity then they can form an Archielago.Surprise, Surprise, they are called theySpratly Islands by western countries, Nansha by China, Kapuluang by the Philippines... and so on. AND these islands are referred to Archipelago in Wikipedia.So.... it is pretty safe to say that the islands have historically been regarded as an Archipelago.Continuing on: an Archipelago can produce a EEZ:UNCLOS Article 48The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47.In summary, the rocks are grouped together with the islands to form an archipelago. And an archipelago can create an EEZ.Point 7) Counter ArgumentKhanh Tran Trong's answer to this question (on this thread) provided a reasonable counter argument to this point.To quote his summary:Now UNLESS you consider China an archipelagic State, OR the Spratlys and Paracels as Sovereign State, Article 46-47-48 does not apply.CLICK HERE to see his answer in full.I am not fully convinced that the Spratly Islands must be either an Archipelagic state, or a Sovereign state in order to be considered an Archipelago (and thus, receive an EEZ in accordance with UNCLOS Article 46-47-48).Wikipedia appears to agree with my sentiments. In the Spratly Islands page, the islands are describes as follows:The Spratly Islands (Chinese: 南沙群岛; pinyin: Nánshā Qúndǎo, Malay: Kepulauan Spratly, Tagalog: Kapuluan ng Kalayaan,[8] Vietnamese: Quần đảo Trường Sa) are a disputed group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea.[9] The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam. [...]However, legal jargon may be different to common usage of words. So, although I don't agree with this counter point, I will be a good sport and still make mention of it.Point 8) China is being excessively forceful/violent/aggravating.This point is very subjective. Whether or not China is too aggressive is still up for debate. But according to some analysis's, China is not the BIGGEST Aggressor in the South China Sea.Point 9) The South China Sea is "international waters"The following countries disagree with this claim:China (PRC) , Taiwan (ROC), Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Philippines.If this argument is followed up by something along the lines of "the rocks/reefs/artificial islands can not be claimed as islands or used to generate EEZ" then please refer back to Point 3, Point 5 and Point 7 of this post.

This topic was discussed on Quora in 2018 [1], but with such ridiculous misinformation that it deserves a better informed answer. I answered briefly on that thread in August 2019, but the absurdity of several other people’s answers (like thinking the nerves secrete the teeth or that the nerves of the teeth are there just “by accident”) should not stand unchallenged. One “semi retired dentist” whom someone else called out for his wrong information, responded “So write a better answer.” I wasn’t the one who called him out, but I rise to the challenge anyway, with more supportive references than I gave before.Let’s start with some basic dental anatomy. I offer the following figure from my own textbook [2].A tooth has nerves in two places. One is the pulp cavity, shown here in red with yellow nerve fibers entering the root canals from below. This cavity is what is reamed out and filled with gutta-percha in a root canal procedure. The blood supply in this cavity nourishes the inner tissue (dentin) of the tooth. The other site of nerve fibers is the periodontal ligament, the thin pink line I show between the cementum and alveolar bone (jawbone); I didn’t try to explicitly illustrate the nerves there, but they’re important to our discussion. The teeth are not directly bound to the jawbones or held rigidly in place (and contrary to common belief, teeth are not bones). The periodontal ligaments allow teeth to move slightly in their sockets as we chew, and these nerves sense that movement.To be sure, the nerves of the teeth provide sensitivity to heat, cold, and pain. It’s difficult to see an evolutionary basis of dental thermoreception (how perception of heat and cold on the teeth would have survival value, considering what our prehistoric ancestors ate—no popsicles or hot tea), but presumably there is one. It’s not hard, though, to see the value in awareness of pain from the teeth.Even more important though, I think, is proprioception—the brain’s unconscious awareness of the position and movement of body parts. This word literally means perception of one’s own [body] as opposed to perception of external stimuli. To take an obvious example, proprioception is the reason why (if you’re not drunk) you can extend your arm, close your eyes, and accurately bring your fingertip inward to touch your nose. Proprioception is crucial to all our limb movements; our ability to walk, run, or dance; even our ability to stand and sit up straight and maintain posture. Proprioception is a form of mechanoreception—sensory awareness of mechanical stimuli (as opposed to smell, vision, etc.).Proprioception is important in our teeth, too, even though we seldom think as much about this. It is the reason we can feel a tiny bit of food stuck between our teeth, leading us to try to dislodge it with the tongue or remove it with floss or a toothpick. It’s one way we know we’ve chewed our food enough to swallow it.Both the periodontal ligament and the dental pulp contain not just pain fibers, but also nerve fibers specialized for proprioception. I can do no better in explaining this than the following author, Portland dentist and researcher Jay Harris Levy, DDS, writing in a dental journal with this continuing education course for dentists. You can read the entire article (including 27 literature references) here [3]. It’s very enlightening to anyone seriously interested in this (and should be read by other Quorans who have posted some absurdly wrong information on this site). I give you Dr. Levy:MechanoreceptionTeeth are specialized organs that function to nourish and sustain life. While people eat, the brain rapidly compares food’s texture and hardness in the mouth to previous encounters and determines the best chewing strategy. Optimal chewing forces and rhythms are developed based on tactile sensory feedback from the food bolus’s contact with the teeth and soft tissues as the bolus progressively becomes smaller. The ability of a tooth to endure the rigors of mastication depends on having a durable stone-like structure and a complex neural control system to maintain the tooth’s integrity. The cornerstone of this neural control system is an exquisitely sensitive network of mechanoreceptors within the tooth and its periodontal ligament. Dental mechanoreceptors play a crucial role in providing tactile sensory feedback that minimizes the stresses that teeth endure while they pulverize vast quantities of food in a lifetime. Under the influence of pathologic conditions such as malocclusion or central nervous system disease, the teeth’s mechanosensory system can play a key role in promoting destructive oromotor behaviors, such as bruxism and clenching.San Diego dentist William Halligan reports here [4] on the troublesome sensory illusion and chewing dysfunction experienced by one of his own patients with faulty dental proprioception. Proprioception defects can be a factor in such serious syndromes as temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, nighttime tooth grinding (bruxism), and malocclusion (or illusions of malocclusion—a sense that one’s upper and lower teeth aren’t meeting properly even if they are). Loss of proprioception is also the reason why tooth loss and substitution of dentures are associated with defects in the perception of food in the mouth and the control of jaw movements in chewing [5]. Crum and Loiselle (both DDS), also attest to the importance of dental proprioception to mastication and to the preservation of one’s natural teeth [6].I taught dental (and other) histology and oral (and other) anatomy for 40 years, so I’ve been interested in this for a long time. Several practicing dentists got their first introduction to dental anatomy from me. My own dentist (Dr. John F. Harrington) was one of my students in the late 1970s. A couple of years ago, he and I discussed this proprioception issue; my student became my teacher when I was less aware of the sensory significance of the periodontal ligament. Until then, I thought of the ligament as only the tooth’s anchorage to the jaw, with a little bit of give to it to prevent tooth cracking during chewing. He pointed out that his patients who have dental implants, and who therefore lack the periodontal ligament on those teeth, more often damage their teeth by excessive bite force than people damage their natural teeth. Levy [3] says the same thing: that patients who lack dental proprioception, as in artificial (“nonvital”—nonliving) teeth, exhibit abnormally rapid tooth wear with “excessively high fracture rate” and sometimes “catastrophic fractures” of their teeth because, with the brain unable to monitor bite force and chewing motions, they bite too hard.As Dr. Levy states in the above abstract, this proprioception (mechanoreception) is an important “complex control system to maintain the tooth’s integrity.” Dr. Harrington’s account to me of patients without proprioception damaging their implants by biting too hard confirms this.My conversation with Dr. Harrington stimulated me to read up in the literature on dental proprioception, and that, in turn, led me to revise my three textbooks of anatomy (including [2]). Certain Quora respondents should also revise or delete their poorly informed, misleading, and irresponsible answers.——————————-ReferencesWhat is the evolutionary reason for teeth to have nerves?K.S. Saladin. 2018. Anatomy & Physiology—The Unity of Form and Function, 8th ed. (McGraw-Hill).J.H. Levy. 2009. Teeth as sensory organs. Inside Dentistry. 2(3). Online continuing education course, https://www.aegisdentalnetwork. com/id/special-issues/2009/10/teeth-as-sensory-organs.W. Halligan. 2019. How’s your patient’s proprioception? https://halligantmj.com/hows-your-patients-proprioception/I. Kineberg & G. Murray. 1999. Osseoperception: sensory function and proprioception. Advances in Dental Research. 13:120–129. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11276734R.J. Crum & R.J. Loiselle. 1972. Oral perception and proprioception: a review of the literature and its significance to prosthodontics. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 28(2):215–230.