Re: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:24:19PM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:
> [Chris Welty wrote:]
> > 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).
You seem to be missing Chris W's point. Neuroscience may indeed be the
key to understanding the origins of our conceptualization of the world,
but the conceptualizations themselves are what ontology is interested
in, not their origins. An ontology of a certain manufacturing domain,
say, will include axioms concerning queues, drill bits, elevators, NC
machines, etc. At this level, neuroscience -- critical as it may be for
understanding thought and human nature in general -- does indeed seem
irrelevant, since the hardware and mechanisms of the brain are simply
not part of the domain in question, and hence don't figure into its
description (and consequently into any ontology-based software we write
to make that system operate more effectively).
> 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'.
You know, crackpots often turn abusive when someone disagrees with them.
You don't want people to think you're a crackpot, do you?
-chris