RE: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
At 10:24 PM +1100 2/24/02, Chris Lofting wrote:
>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).
???
It is good to be passionate about things, but more useful not to
misdirect that passion. Since you seem to like the phrase, "get
real", here's some real for you:
The universe exists, independent of us. If we did not exist, the
universe still would (or at least could). There is nothing intrinsic
about "mind" or "brain" (you seem to like to refer to them as proper
nouns - spider senses tingling here) that makes them any more or less
a part of the universe than anything else.
Ontology begins with a basic assumption: the universe exists, and
there are things in it. It then defines itself as the field which
attempts to catalog and classify those things.
What you are talking about is another, different science, which
begins with different assumptions and proceeds along different lines.
If you are not interested in doing ontology, then perhaps you should
not be participating in a group that deals with it.
-ChrisW
>
>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
--
Christopher A. Welty http://www.cs.vassar.edu/faculty/welty/
Vassar College Computer Science Dept. Voice: (845) 437-5992
Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0462 Fax: (845) 437-7498