SUO: RE: X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.7f, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
John,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2002 8:04
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: cg@cs.uah.edu
> Subject: SUO: X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.7f,
> http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> No, that is false:
>
> Chris Lofting wrote
>
> > CSP is 'old hat' when you consider the current data from
> > neurocognitive/affective research data. IMHO you need to move
> into the 21st
>
> > century, not wallow in the 18th/19th etc.
>
> The issues we are discussing have absolutely nothing to do with
> how the brain works. They are purely logical issues that would
> work in exactly the same way for a computer, a Martian, or
> any conceivable form of what Peirce called a "scientific
> intelligence" -- by which he meant "any intelligence capable
> of learning from experience".
No. it is for any lifeform that SPECIFICALLY uses the neuron to process
data. Computers cant do that at the moment and any lifeform developed off
this planet need not reflect our version of 'scientific intelligence' unless
they have adapted to their environment by making object/relationship
distinctions.
> By that, he included humans,
> dogs, parrots, and any and every kind of intelligent being
> that is capable of receiving sensory inputs (of any kind) and
> capable of generating motor responses (of any kind).
>
any form of representation, and that includes logic etc now needs to be
re-analysed in light of the neurocognitive/affective research data. Logic is
not 'free' of neurocognitive influences that act to structure our
perceptions - we can even trace the roots of logic (law of identity,
excluded middle etc) to the development of vision as a major source of our
methods for processing abstractions and further refinements in precision due
to the development of the audition system (it is more precise due to its
'dot' precision using superpositions etc)
> > In fact, with out current understanding of neurosciences etc
> you could BURN
>
> > every book written pre 1960s and in a short period re-establish
> all of the
>
> > 'quality' and at the same time clear away a lot of chaff simply
> because all
>
> > of the material is metaphor for object/relationship processing of the
> > brain/mind. - we are often overloaded with 'history' and as
> such can fail
> to
> > see things 'clearly' [;-)]
>
> Again, that is false. Although I agree that there is a great
> deal more known about how neurons work and various parts of the
> brain are activated when people are talking, thinking, or
> feeling sensory inputs, experiencing emotions, etc., none of
> that information tells us anything that is relevant to logic,
> language, or the recognition and processing of signs.
>
yes it does - read more (some of the general articles off
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting and then there is also the ref list/further
reading etc http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/brefs.html ) Our culture is
at a level where we can identify/model the general roots of logic,
mathematics, language and the processing/recognition of signs etc etc There
is even the suggestion of identifying our source of our method of argument
stemming from the manner in which our brains deal with sensory paradox
(http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html)
My own work on the general set of qualities we use derived from recursion
identifies a common set of 'feelings' we find expressed in such 'different'
areas as the types of numbers we use in mathematics, the categories of
persona types we use in psychology tests, and even the qualities associated
with Chinese divination/philosophy systems - in particular the I Ching and
T'ai Huang Ching (The latter Peirce would have loved since it is based on
trichotomies and as such can be used to symbolise
firstness-secondness-thirdness that includes the duel encoding in thirdness)
> As an example, I would suggest that you open the computer
> case on which you are typing your notes and look inside.
> You will find lots of wires, cables, chips, and metal boxes
> with cables and wires attached. What you see is comparable
> to what the neuroscientist sees in looking at the brain.
> But that cannot tell you anything about how the brain or the
> computer actually processes logic or language.
>
As I said, read some of the pages at the site - there is no problem in
establishing a general link all the way 'up' and 'down' from neuron to Mind.
Read especially the Brain/Mind sections in
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html where the oscillations in the
brain IMPLY mind and as such indicates a well known property/method of the
neuron - recruitment and abstraction.
> MRI imaging tells you a little bit more: what parts of the
> brain are active when people say and do various things. That is
> comparable to getting a trace of all addresses generated by the
> CPU when a program is running. Trying to deduce what the program
> does from that list of addresses is impossible. Trying to deduce
> how people learn, think, or process language from the MRI scans
> is equally impossible.
>
Not if you read more. ;-) you seem to demonstrate in your prose a lack of
knowledge outside of your specialisation and that is a problem; the
reluctance to move out of the box to see things from the species perspective
and then step back into the box to gain 'new' insights will slow you down.
(see the article on idealism/materialism ;-))
> I will grant that you might be able to correlate an MRI scan
> with certain kinds of thoughts, but that is still woefully
> inadequate to understand what is going on in the brain. It is
> comparable to using the pattern of storage accesses to determine
> which program is running in a computer; that can be done, but
> you still have to look at the actual source code in order to
> determine what is being computed.
>
You still dont get it do you. The brain processes information using
recursion on such dichotomies of particular/general, what/where. The
self-referencing ensures the whole is encoded in all parts (as it is in
cells with DNA etc) and as such you can develop complex patterns from
minimal data (e.g. a single cell).
Understanding the properties and methods of dichotomisation and out pops the
set of qualities we all use as a species, our METHODOLOGY, and from that
stems all else. Each collective, each individual takes the universal set of
qualities and grounds them my linking them to a context. IOW the link of
SAMENESS to context allows for the identification of DIFFERENCES (which we
as a species are more attuned to detect - we habituate to sameness)
CPS did a good job for his times re categories but failed to clearly
identify the dynamics emphasis probably due to the continued belief in God
etc (and so an archetypal, statics emphasis)and lacking knowledge re the
idealist/materialist perspectives encoded in the brain (he was aware of
Broca's work and was wary of his left-handedness possibly influencing his
thinking but that was all. If he was alive today he would be STRONGLY
supporting the focus on neurocognitive/affective research and in doing so
would have discovered his 'error' in categorisation (e,g, properties of
thirdness - it is bifurcations all the way; trichotomies are 'forced' and a
such will remain in error due to the lack of understanding the DYNAMICS, the
OSCILLATIONS, of mediation/representation in thirdness etc etc and ALL of
that has an affect on reflections on LOGIC))
> If you want to get a better understanding of history, I strongly
> recommend that you read the following book:
>
> James, William (1890) The Principles of Psychology,
> Two volumes, Dover Publications, New York.
>
I have been reading all of this sort of material for decades (including
James - he was de rigour in psych 101) - please dont try to teach me to suck
eggs ;-)
> This is a classic textbook on psychology, which is remarkably
> up-to-date.
NOT from the perspective of neurocognitive research and that is the source
of all mind.
> One of the reviewers, a professional psychologist
> who wrote the blurb on the back of the book, said that it is
> a "humbling experience" to compare what is known today about
> psychology with what James wrote in 1890. For more information
> about these topics, I suggest that you read my review of a
> recent book by Lakoff and Johnson (who also made outrageous
> claims about today's neuroscience):
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/lakoff.htm
>
> Bottom line: There is a lot that can be learned from MRI
> scans and brain surgery, and I don't want to belittle it in
> any way. But none of the information that is known today or
> in the near future (say up to 2050) can tell us anything more
> about language, logic, and signs than what William James said
> in 1890 (or even what Aristotle wrote in the 4th century BC).
>
Yes it can. Read the essays (BTW lakoff's book on mathematics is 'ok' but he
missed too much re the roots of mathematics etc see
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/NeuroMaths3.htm )
Perhaps you are looking for too much detail - the brain reflects the
'mindless' heuristics of a few million years (billion years?) of
development. All you need to understand is the METHODOLOGY of the brain in
categorising etc and work from there using recursion. There is no need to
COPY the brain, just COPY the METHOD and there is enough data around to
identify the SPECIES level METHOD of identifying the 'meaningful' from the
'meaningless'... and it is all 'logical' once logic incorporates DYNAMICS in
it function (and so first level context dependence - CPS's error was in
declaring a universal set of categories which were not so in that thirdness
requires context to identify mediation OR representation and there are
situations (as in the state vector of QM etc) where this oscillation can go
on for ever [which Peirce DID recognise as a property of thirdness - he just
could not commit to the dynamics emphasis - see above link on mindless
sensory paradox processing as a source of arguement and A/NOT-A assertions]
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus