Re: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:54:08AM +1100, Chris Lofting wrote:
>
> 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.
Hmm...
> [Welty:]
> > 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. ;-)
How about this: Instead of this torrent of words, how about you put
your money your mouth is and actually *create* a "proper" ontology by
the "most efficient method" and show all of the poor
lost/marginalized/rigid souls on this list where they are going wrong in
some concrete and useful fashion. Words are cheap.
> (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' ;-)))
Yet another of Godel's "theorems" that Godel himself would be amazed to
know he "demonstrated".
-chris