Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Hi,
Quoting "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>:
> Chris,
>
> From your comments, I gather that you are an autodidact.
>
> JS>> First, the question about how the brain works and the
> >> question about whether a theory is an accurate statement
> >> about some aspect of the world are two totally different
> >> questions. An answer to one has *absolutely nothing* to
> >> do with an answer to the other. No amount of research
> >> on one can tell us anything about the other.
>
> CL> !LOL - the ignorance in that is absolutely astounding
> > - right out of the realm of the 'middle' and so the
> > intellectually 'dead', pre-historic, idealist pap.
I've never met a brain researcher/neurologist who is not
an extreme idealist. So I don't know what you (Chris) mean
with the ''idealist pap''. This is cut from "Truth: A
Primer" by Frederick F. Schmitt (realism in this sense
is not the same as with the realism-nominalism debate):
"Realists maintain that objects exist independently of
human thought, whereas idealists, for their part, insist
on the mind-dependence of objects."
...
"At first blush, the ontological question whether
objects are mind-dependent may seem irrelevant to the
semantical issue of the nature of truth."
The dependence-independence talk is a strong part of the
discussion about the nature of truth, but the discussion
about the nature of truth does not affect for example
Semantic Web ontologies. Even if everything was
mind-dependent (majority of people think not) how would
that affect some domain ontology? Also, a conceptual graph
like the Tree of Porphyry would not change no matter if
objects were mind-dependent or mind-independent. This way
the whole question about mind-dependence doesn't affect
of benefit ontology, at least not on the level of Internet
or AI applications. Or do you have examples (even theoretic)
of applications that could benefit from that?
-A
>
> The point I was making is very well considered,
> and it happens to be true.
>
> If you would like to know my opinion of your approach,
> I suggest that you read Sartre's _La Nausée_.
>
> John
>
--
Always forward towards the highest maximé of scientifical philosophization