RE: SUO: RE: Re: Extension x Comprehension
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Chris Menzel
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 3:44
> To: IEEE Standard Upper Ontology List
> Subject: 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.
>
if you mean a hardware 'meaning chip' - no money. no resources and not
qualified enough to get any -- so I use words to stir others and get them to
go
Hmmm...
then there is of course the template work
(http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/plate.html ) which indicates the 'root' of
our sense of meaning - and so a set of universal categories we use to create
a sense of quality. Same set mapped to all the different contexts and so an
infinite number of terms for 'wholeness' but still the one general feeling
shared amongst all members of the species ....and all derived from the
method we use to get details - self-referencing through recursion.
The parts lists will have everything nicely labelled to ensure we dont
confuse things but the labels all point to the ONE set of general
qualities - all wholes are 'wholes' after all ;-) IOW all of the different
lexicons share the ONE set of general qualities. The 'full' meaning in
anything is the combination of the generally invarient species set of
qualities combined with a context to give us 'difference'. There will be
personal and cultural 'nuances' such that what is a 'whole' for you may be
categorised as a 'part' by me but the general format is the same - context
elicits the differences.
the self-referencing combined with the neuron's ability to recruit/abstract
means our set of qualities is developed very quickly into compounds of the
basics (Since self-referencing indicates
addition-multiplication-exponentiation-tetration, if you work on tetration
being the preferred format then we get lots of qualities very quickly - even
ones we have not experienced as yet and so lots of room for 'expansion'
within the box.)
As such we can move from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16 million possible qualities
(as long as we dont lose resolution and so can no longer detect
difference... and then there is the presence of neural prisms which seem to
take a sensation and derive its parts list! 'instant' ontologies - which BTW
can be manipulated to form a source of communication in that the spectrum
order is 'fixed' and we play with the intensity of the 'colours', the
harmonics, -- which gets us back to QUALITIES in that there is a STRONG
relationship of sensory harmonics to feelings (IOW it is all frequencies,
wavelengths and amplitudes 'in here' -- which is what the neuron works with
;-))
> > (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".
>
the incompleteness theorem is rooted in dichotomisations and the result is
'inevitable'. If Godel and a lot of others had the knowledge now available
re neurocognitive processes we would be way ahead of where we are ...
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