An attribute is a characteristic of an entity, whereas a relation is a connection between two or more entities. In logic, we can define an attribute as a predicate with one argument and a relation as a predicate with two or more arguments. The distinction between attributes and relations can be unclear. For example, the colour red may be seen as an attribute, RED(X), or a relation, REDDER_THAN(X, Y).
I am slowly coming to believe that (1) the distinction between attributes and relations is fundamental to many different fields, (2) attributes are typically considered primary in some sense, whereas relations are secondary, yet (3) it is actually relations that are primary and attributes that are secondary. In fact, I suspect that attributes are simply a convenient fiction.
In the field of physics, these three points are the core of Lee Smolin’s The Life of the Cosmos. Smolin associates attribute-based physics with Newton and relation-based physics with Leibniz. He makes a persuasive argument that the Newtonian paradigm has dominated physics, but it is fundamentally flawed, and it is slowly being replaced with the Leibnizian paradigm.
In the field of cognitive psychology, Dedre Gentner has spent her academic life studying the psychology of attributes and relations. She has found that attributes tend to be learned earlier, but relations tend to gain importance as the individual matures. Our most sophisticated thinking is analogical reasoning, which is based on recognizing similarities in relations.
In the field of machine learning, entities are usually represented as feature vectors; that is, vectors of attributes. Inductive Logic Programming allows machine learning with relational representations, but ILP is less popular than feature-based learning. Probabilistic reasoning also favours attribute-based representations, although researchers are working on relational representations for probabilistic models.
In the field of philosophy of mind, qualia are used to argue against materialist treatments of consciousness. The experience of seeing the colour red is the traditional example of a quale. The Inverted Spectrum argument seems to show that there is something fundamental to the experience of redness, which cannot be reduced to the firing of neurons. But David Cole makes a strong argument that the Inverted Spectrum argument contradicts empirical observation. In essence, Cole argues that red is not actually an attribute; it is really a relation.
In the field of computational linguistics (my own field, if I must be pinned down), much research has gone into the problem of measuring the similarity between two words. This is a form of attributional similarity. More recently, research has addressed the problem of measuring relational similarity between pairs of words. Although there is a longer history behind attributional similarity measures, it may be that relational similarity measures are more important for computational linguistics. Experiments seem to show that relational similarity cannot be reduced to attributional similarity, but I suspect that it may be possible to reduce attributional similarity to relational similarity, and I have started sketching an algorithm for performing this reduction.
Filed under: Computational Linguistics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Science, Semantics | Tagged: attributes, perception, relations
The cleanest test of the merit of emphasizing relational similarity would be to replace the use of attributes/features with the use of relations in natural language text compression.
Right now, the algorithms winning the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge are using only attribute similarity.
http://prize.hutter1.net/#contestants
Your emphasis on the relation of formal analogy reminds me of René Lavie’s approach. I’d be interested to hear your comments on his PhD thesis:
René Lavie. 2003. Le locuteur analogique ou la grammaire remise à sa place.
I’m fairly sure there is an English translation, but am unable to find a link.
I assume you are familiar with Esa Itkonen’s work on analogy and language (e.g. http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/Reviews/itkonen)
René’s work is computational. Esa’s is not.
Personally I think relations are indeed the right parameter, but that we don’t need to consider relations as elaborate as formal analogies. Distributions of contexts will do.
I’m sure it will suffice to define attributes to be tokens clustered on contexts, and relations to be contexts clustered on tokens, so they will turn out to be simply some kind of inverse of each other, essentially the same problem. Most importantly I feel that we will come to understand the key error is to attempt any form of universal classification for either.
Congrats for such a great blog. I found your work really interesting.
Regarding to
“I am slowly coming to believe that (1) the distinction between attributes and relations is fundamental to many different fields, (2) attributes are typically considered primary in some sense, whereas relations are secondary, yet (3) it is actually relations that are primary and attributes that are secondary. In fact, I suspect that attributes are simply a convenient fiction.”
I must agree with this. Relations are far more important than attributes.
René Lavie. 2003. Le locuteur analogique ou la grammaire remise à sa place.
I’m fairly sure there is an English translation, but am unable to find a link.
I assume you are familiar with Esa Itkonen’s work on analogy and language (e.g. http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/Reviews/itkonen)
René’s work is computational. Esa’s is not.
Thanks. I’ll take a look at these.
I’m sure it will suffice to define attributes to be tokens clustered on contexts, and relations to be contexts clustered on tokens, so they will turn out to be simply some kind of inverse of each other, essentially the same problem.
I don’t agree, but I would be happy to give you a copy of the SAT analogy questions if you want to try this approach.
For more discussion of this, see:
http://apperceptual.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/unified-latent-analysis/
Congrats for such a great blog. I found your work really interesting.
Thanks!
You wrote:
“I am slowly coming to believe that (1) the distinction between attributes and relations is fundamental to many different fields, (2) attributes are typically considered primary in some sense, whereas relations are secondary, yet (3) it is actually relations that are primary and attributes that are secondary.”
Robert Rosen came to the same conclusions in Theoretical Biology/Bio-Physics. Indeed, he found that relations are, more often than not, actually responsible for attributes, in the causal sense. Furthermore, not only are these findings applicable to information technologies, they are universally applicable (including, of course, living/biological systems). His suggestion, for science, was to expand the current attribute-focused paradigm so that it can finally approach questions about relational causality. These issues, he said, are the essence of Complexity.
Slainte,
Judith Rosen
Update:
The anatomy of an illusion — and what it tells us about the visual system
I wonder can you view an attribute as a relation between two objects. Hmmm names to choose: exhibitionist and voyeur?
Say you have an exhibitionist object, e_1, whose attributes are “on display”, and two voyeurs, v_1 and v_2. Could you see anything interesting by making attributes relations?
Say
red(e,v1)
green(e,v2)
v1 sees e as having the attribute of redness; v2 sees e as having the attribute of greenness.
Then you might be able to go wild and crazy and count the number of x such that r(e,x) – and so on.
Maybe if the set x reaches a certain size then r may be viewed as an attribute.
Update:
Structural Realism
When you stated “In fact, I suspect that attributes are simply a convenient fiction.”, something in my brain blurted “the same could be said of anything born of human language”.
I think we need better tests for when a line of inquiry has become circular/groundless/silly.
Attributes are properties of an individual. Relations are driven by attributes but will help change attributes. Overall, attributes and relations are not static but changing.
The problem is that the terms used in grammar, logic and psychology are not harmonized. Relations are basically verbs, hence objects and properties are basically are noun clusters.
No correct ontology is possible without introducing mental operations that result in objects, relations and properties that are the end product of semantic analysis, not words or other rmorphological units.