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: Tuesday, 26 February 2002 3:06
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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 integration 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.
>
IOW an ontology begins with an encapsulation, an isolation, upon which to
focus attention and works from there which is *exactly* what I am talking
about re the manner in which our brain works and how that manner is
abstracted to the level of mind; concrete level function is recruited and
abstracted to a universal level which is what the brain does. (Mind for me
is brain operating in abstract mode but for others the term can be
interpreted as a derived 'something' sharing the same space/wetware -- and
that model allows for 'multiple' personas in the once space)
This process of categorisation and abstraction comes with some properties
that can get confused with what is being analysed and if you DONT take the
time to understand the neurocognitive functions then you will fail in your
task or else add unnecessary elements since no matter what you do the brain
will convert the data into what IT deals with - objects and relationships.
(JS seems to prefer the trichotomous perspective - BIG problem there in that
it treats dynamics poorly)
By understanding the METHODOLOGY of the brain so you understand what you are
trying to deal with - the ONE method used by the species to derive parts
lists as part of our *natural*, *instinctive* processes for what we can call
'dot' precision as compared to the more everyday 'field' precision.
Different times and collectives will elicit different methods of deriving
parts lists depending on a number of factors but all the brain will do is
re-convert to ITS mode of operation where even the 'irreducables' are
represented in the form of oscillations (A/NOT-A/A/NOT-A....)
By initially using the brain's way of doing things you cut out a lot of crap
imposed from 'approximates' thinking aka 'field' precision. You then can
reflect on the method and if need be refine it for AI systems.
Note carefully that an ontological perspective comes with an inherent 'need'
to transcend (aka mutate) in that the parts list is sterile, nice to look at
but goes nowhere, and as such people will feel the 'need' to tinker, to get
a sudden 'ah-HA' experience etc. They are 'driven' to do this - especially
in 'idealist' collectives. (the analysis methodology converts begin-end time
to a sense of the 'eternal' - useful for identifying statics but also allows
for delusions in that the thermodynamic emphasis of the everyday gets
converted to a mechanistic emphasis and so such concepts as 'time reversal'
are permitted :-( - can get us into delusions and the delusions get encoded
in the parts list and .... etc etc. As I said, you need to be wary of these
properties of the neurocognitive processes that, being generally unconscious
in form, we have not been wary of and so allowed our models to take-on some
'interesting' properties!)
Also note that the set of qualities we use as a species is derived from the
self-referencing we use in the analysis; the recursion involved will always
generate the SAME set of qualities for whatever we are analysing and we will
'instinctively' create a lexicon to go with the parts list and so introduce
DIFFERENCE which we then use to communicate.
All the differences go to hiding the sameness which is in fact the source of
our ability to make analogies and create metaphors (the latter reflecting
the neuron's recruitment bias - also note that analogies/metaphors reflect
links to the underlying FEELINGS encoded in the ONE set of qualities - the
different words act as pointers); IOW identify the ontology 'template'
sourced in the neurocognitive processes and all else follows from there.
> What you are talking about is another, different science, which
> begins with different assumptions and proceeds along different lines.
Dont think so - you are just being too narrow in thinking ;-)
> If you are not interested in doing ontology, then perhaps you should
> not be participating in a group that deals with it.
>
I AM interested and that is the point - you dont seem to be interested in
doing 'proper' ontology a la the most efficient methods etc. You all come
across as a little 'lost' or else marginalised by politics or a rigid sense
of 'staying in the box'. Not good when all of the necessary data to aid you
is 'out there' and all you need to do is step out and 'up' into the general
box of the species - gather some 'facts' and then step back into the
specialised box with some new insights. This is what the brain does and it
seems to have done ok for itself - maybe you can learn from it. ;-) (and as
Godel demonstrated, specialised boxes need 'new blood' from the outside in
that the outside is their source of energy (and so their 'incompleteness'
;-)))
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