RE: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
ChrisW,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher A. Welty
> Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 11:45
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
>
>
>
> At 6:22 PM +1100 2/22/02, 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.
> >
> >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' ;-)
>
> Ontology is about (describing) what things exist in the universe.
> Neuroscience, other than being one of those things, has nothing to do
> with it.
>
amazing lack of knowledge Chris. Where do you think these 'parts lists' come
from? God? do you think Mind is something outside of Brain? Get real; Mind
is abstracted from Brain as Brain reflects the intergration of sensory
processing and the recruitment and abstraction of that processing to enable
us to make our parts lists - our 'ontologies' (and our Logic).
Where do you think the notion of an 'ontology' comes from? where do you
think the attraction of developing an ontology comes from? do you think it
is 'magic' or something your 'mind' has come up with? get real - it is
*instinctive* and sourced in our Brain and our brain's analytical processes
where 'something' is encapsulated and we use self-referencing to dig out the
details (and so a parts list). Mind has recruited and abstracted that,
taking something from the realm of the mindless, concrete level to the
mindful, abstract level of information processing. (and even beyond into the
culture - see the idealism/materialism discussion in
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html )
The brain's analytical methodology allows for very clear, precise details
BUT also 'paints' all elements with the ONE SET of qualities we use as a
species to categorise. We differentiate this sameness through mapping the
general categories to the context and so derive DIFFERENCE which we then
communicate.
Surely by understanding how the species develops ontologies 'instinctively'
you should be able to copy that METHOD and even 'refine' it rather than
wandering around in abstract space oblivious to how you function and coming
up with complex methods that have to be decoded by the brain into ITS method
prior to processing!
You can create whatever you wish, it can be as idiotic as you can imagine
but since it is expression it will ALWAYS be metaphor and converted to what
the brain understands - objects and relationships processing which involves
analytical (differentiation) and synthetical (intergration) processes and
the differentiation process is focused on self-referencing to make its maps
(and so ensure the whole is encoded in all parts -- as nature does with
cells and DNA etc)
> Our own minds, as is clearly evidenced by this very group, do very
> little to clear away chaff - they create it. Neurons are a poor
> model on which to base a theory of the universe.
>
they are excellent models since ALL SENSORY DATA WORKS THROUGH THEM AS
FILTERS; IOW they are the ONLY model. You seem to want to ignore that fact -
the highest expressions of Mind reflect the same patterns we find in the
neuron and as such we 'see' self-referencing all the way 'up'. (and note
that misinterpretations are a function of lack of knowledge and as such
undestanding that makes you at least LOOK for the chaff rather than sit back
in your seat and say 'oh it happens' as well as express your opinion as you
have in the above comments re this list.)
The differences in Brain/Mind are in the *recognised* transcendences where
we can develop a level of understanding that is 'abstract' and so expresses
the local to universal, the concrete to abstract, processes of the brain out
of which can develop minds (or even multiple minds all sharing the one brain
;-)) This takes us into the realm of the irreducable where an attempted
reduction only leads to an expression in the form of oscillations (that can
appear as paradox when taken past their level).
These oscillations etc reflect the DYNAMIC elements of Mind and they
DIRECTLY AFFECT our creation of ontologies (as Peirce made the error in his
universal categories).
> Without history to guide us, be assured we would "recreate" far worse.
>
Not these days, ancient history is now 50 years ago! Delete all abstract
history, all past interpretations since they will always be APPROXIMATIONS.
Why dwell on approximations when you now have direct access to the 'source'
of your thought and so increased precision?
All I have seen so far on this list are squabbles based on politics and
'meandering' thought, some of which is 'stuck' in the 19th century or at
best the 1980s of the 20th century!
The amount of neurocognitive data available in the last 18 years alone means
that JS needs to revise his book (and that includes a re-consideration of
trichotomous perspectives). WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE OF THOUGHT and what
do you people do? have the audacity to say that that access is 'not
helpful'! WOW!.
Maybe they should introduce reviews for all tenured positions every 6
months - like they do with airline pilots just to make sure they still have
the 'edge'.
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