|
Dear Gary,
You are raising intriguing questions regarding
meaning and processible ontologies. I hope my short contribution will make the
picture clearer.
To have correct understanding of knowledge, meaning
ought to be viewed as a meaning relation between signs (symbols, words or
ideas, thoughts) and things in the real world. Any relation by nature is
two-sided or bi-directional (from signs to things as well as form things to
signs). The ontological perspective comes out here as most fundamental; for
it is mapping the real structures to the sign structures (which include
conceptual structures). This is the subject matter of ontological
linguistics (ontological grammar, syntax, and real valued semantics), which
shouldn't be mixed with its complement, linguistic ontology. In the ontological
language, real meaning is fixed as the semantic values of signs, determined
by the entities and relationships in the real world. Once the sign
structures with their associations in a certain domain knowledge are sorted out
as truly conforming to the ontological structures, you can enjoy a
machine-processible ontology.
The second issue is inherently connected with the
successful resolution of the first one.
Materialism-Idealism distinction is the result of
an innate tendency of the human mind to all sorts of dichotomy and duality. This
opposite division is a bad heritage of classic metaphysics, born by the
confused polarity of all things as abstract, ideal realities (froms, ideas) and
material, physical realities. The practice of modern science is inclined to
deny as the only reality either ideas or matter, where one exists as
subordinate to another. The task of general formal ontology is to
view the abstract entities and the concrete things as two parts of one real
world, as two distinct domains of reality, the universe of matter and the
universe of mind, somehow interrelated to each other. And the concepts of
mind and matter should be synthesized not within materialism or idealism but
rather within a general ontological theory encompassing both parts
as distinct levels within an all-comprehensive hierarchy of
things.
After all, to comprehend the general rules,
principles, and mechanisms of such relationships
(ideality-actuality) is the challenging undertaking for all who
signed up for ontology classes.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:35
PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism :
Idealism and the Differentiating Element
This discussion, along with
Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge
?,
has wandered over
considerable ground but a question was raised along the way about
“how then we should model meaning?.”
One issue was can
"knowledge" ("reality" yes, but not "knowledge") exist independently of the
brain?
A simple counter
question occurred to me, “if such knowledge can[t be defined how why are
trying to build processable ontologies ?
Isn’t that a endeavor to capture meaning outside of the
brain?
John Sowa covered this
in passing, noting that our computer applications include “knowledge”
JS> First, knowledge
is certainly codifiable in a way that
solves a great many problems.
Every program ever written
does that, and there are an enormous number of
very
successful ones. But each of those programs solves
a
particular special case. The problem we face is to
relate those
special cases by general principles.
JS>And that is where the
difficulties lie.
Peirce’s distinction between REAL and TRUE may be helpful to some of us
in ontological community
discussion with an aim to building up usable knowledge .
Perice
"The real, then, is that which,
sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which
is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very origin of the
conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the
notion of a community, without definite limits, and capable of a definite
increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311).
To elaborate further this is now he addressed the distinction between
opinions on the true, and the real in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear ":
"The
opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is
what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the
real. That is the way I would explain reality" (CP 5.407). ….
Peirce continues later with
"reality
is independent, not necessarily of thought in general, but only of what you or
I or any finite number of men may think about it," ….(that), "though the
object of the final opinion depends on what that opinion is, yet what that
opinion is does not depend on what you or I or any man thinks" (CP
5.408). underlining is mine for emphasis
Which brings me, at
least, back to John’s opinion
that he accuracy of any scientific
hypothesis
JS> does not
depend
> on who or what discovered it or on any
methods of thinking,
> any techniques of problem
solving, or any apparatus that
JS> he, she, or it
might have used to arrive at the hypothesis.
I can understand this in
light of Peirce’ efforts to define clear thinking, which we need in Ontology
building.
To
conclude with yet another Peircian quote. Here’s one he used on the path to a
3rd way between the realists and
idealist.
The
philosophical problem is to resolve two contradictory claims about the basis
of reality:
- the principal thesis
of realism - there is a reality that exists independently of our
representations of it or
- Idealism claim that what we perceive
as real dependent is upon our
(usually expressed as mental) representations of “it”.
As James Liszka observed the
clash of the two theses is nicely expressed in Peirce's "Consequences of the
Four Incapacities ":
"...there is no thing which is
in-itself in the sense of not being relative to the mind, though things which
are relative to the mind doubtless are, apart from the relation" (5.311).
Liszkae
called this 3rd way a discursive realism to distinguish it
from the later effort of Rorty or
Foucault, in which there is neither a privileged discourse, nor can any
representational system that can mirror a reality external to such a system
- what might be called the
discursive idealism. Someone may
able to drawn up the realism to idealism continuum, which seems to be as
embedded in our discussions as the ontology
continuum.
Gary Berg-Cross
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG on behalf of Chris
Lofting
Sent: Sun 3/20/2005 6:45 AM
To:
standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc:
Subject:
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating
Element
Hi Avril,
> -----Original
Message-----
> From:
owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Avril Styrman
> Sent: Sunday,
20 March 2005 4:08 AM
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc:
standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: nature ->
"human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge
>
?
>
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> please analyze
thoroughly the idealism-materialism debate with IDM,
> so that I don't
have to read any more books about it.
Jeeze, a *thorough* analyse on
this list!? Ummm.. lets keep it 'vague' for
the moment in that
since we are dealing with the Language of the Vague lets
start 'vague'
through the use of differentiating and so a focus on contrast.
The
Oxford dictionary definition of differentiating is:
"differentiate
v.
1 distinguish, discriminate, contradistinguish, separate, contrast,
oppose,
set off or apart, tell apart: They must learn how to
differentiate one
species from another.
2 modify, specialize, change,
alter, transform, transmute, convert, adapt,
adjust: All organisms
possess the power to differentiate special organs to
meet special
needs."
What is not clearly emphasised here, from a QUALITATIVE
perspective, is the
association of differentiation and of PUSHING AWAY
others to assert self or
some 'point'. As such there is a sense of 'clear
identification' and in that
identification a sense of EXAGGERATION of A
from ~A. (in our brains we can
see this difference between single context
thinking, associated with a
'fundamental' harmonic within which play all
of the others, and multi
context, 'mindless' processes where there is
little exaggeration of A from
all of its harmonics. See comments and refs
in
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html - as such one part
contains all of the POTENTIALS, and
the other part ACTUALISES one
perspective from the others, sets the key
if you like, the tone - what we
see here at the level of consciousness is
patterns of FM/AM processing where
the "A" of A/~A is FM and so very
clear, FM stereo but being so is LOCAL)
This process of exaggeration
IMPLIES a difference in energy utilisation
where to 'make the point' to
differentiate A from ~A requires an increase in
energy expenditure, be it
for a millisecond or a millennium. (thinking is
not free - our brains
burn about 4 to 15 watts of power overall - our bodies
are usually as
'bright' as a 60 to 75 watt light bulb. as we think of 'new'
things so
covalent/ionic bonds are broken/established in the brain and so
generate
heat)
PHYSIOLOGICALLY, and so usually unconscious to our experience,
the increase
in energy reflects an increase in bandwidth to 'make the
point' clear,
obvious, precise. This increase in bandwidth will DECREASE
the notion of
thermodynamic time, it will marginalise time into something
at most
mechanistic and at best 'forgotten' - time becomes something
slowable,
stoppable, even considered reversible. This emphasis is due to
the increase
bandwidth where we focus on NOW. As such, time is felt as a
sense of the
'eternal' - a STATIC focus emerges that favours
differentiation, to make a
'point', to assert A over ~A, I need to
'freeze' it.
In our brains XOR-type thinking does this - (see the
page on paradox
processing - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html) where a
'static' form is extracted from a complex
pattern - the problem in the
particular sensory 'paradox' examples is
that that form appears to share
space with another and that, in the realm
of XOR, is a no-no. So - given the
failure of bandwidth to sort out the
problem, to resolve the 'paradox', we
fall back on TIME to resolve the
issue, our brains 'oscillate' across the
elements expressed in the
'paradox' as we try to reduce an irreducible.
The MAIN focus here is
on explicitly identifying the ONE over all else to a
degree we
over-exaggerate that 'point', to a degree we make it a universal
when
compared to all else. This focus is supposed to be temporary, LOCAL,
in
that once the point is made so all energy is reduced, we fall back to
our
more energy-conserving nature, our species-nature.
To
experience this referred-to subjective time distortion that can come
with
differentiating you need to speed yourself up. Play a mindless
shoot-em-up
computer game can do it, or go driving on the freeway and
then drive off the
freeway onto normal city streets. Check your comfort
level and your speed.
You will find that when sped up/down so your sense
of time has changed due
to the increase/decrease in energy expenditure
required as you control the
joystick/car etc. This change will AFFECT
your decisions and so thinking in
general - IOW it can affect your
reflections on reality such that the
FEELING of the 'eternal' is
formalised into the 'reality' of the eternal,
the static, and so
unchanging.
As one refines skills, so one will habituate and so any
differentiating, any
mediation by consciousness, will disappear to become
instinct/habit or
packed into a symbol - a representation and that can
include 'instinctive'
recognition of the sense of the eternal regardless
of its 'truth' or not.
Note that the XOR(differentiating) 'drive',
being a focus on clarity
introduces the notion of PRECISION - the
differentiating attempts to replace
a current perspective with a 'BETTER'
one and as such there is a bias to
focus on REPLACEMENT. I say this now
since it will emerge later when mapped
to its complement -
COEXISTENCE.
In the context of differentiating, and so a focus on
mediation processes in
general, there is a mapping of any act of DELAY
with the presence of some
form of awareness (see examples in J Libet's
work (2004)"mind time"). This
delay is about 0.5 seconds in 'real time'
overall and appears to reflect
MEDIATION activity - once one has
habituated to whatever one is mediating,
so the delay disappears. As
such, there is a relationship of consciousness
dynamics, increased energy
dynamics, and differentiating overall (WITHIN
differentiating there is
integrating but that area will be covered later).
The mindless (or
semi-aware) 'species-nature' dynamic is where the ability
to go past a
sensation, into its parts, allows for refinement of any
responses to that
sensation. As such, stimulus/response gives way
to
stimulus/considered_response that in turn folds back into
stimulus/response
but now with fine details, finer levels of
discrimination and so finer
choices in response.
In addition to
all of the above, a fundamental concept that appears to come
out of
exaggerated focus on consciousness is the concept of the spiritual,
the
transcendental, and neurologically there is a focus on the delay
factor
(sourced all the way down at the level of the neuron, just not
necessarily
'conscious') working as a tool for mediation and for ESCAPE.
As such, with
this focus on XOR-ing, differentiating, pushing-away, comes
the notion of
escape.
Escape comes in two forms - the reactive
where we back away from something
not caring where we are going, only
concerned with getting away from 'here',
and the proactive, where we
CHOOSE where to go, to escape to. Thus from the
notion of escape comes
the notion of FREEDOM and with that notion comes a
focus on exploiting
'freedom' as well as 'protecting' it.
Note that all of this 'cutting'
done in differentiating, freedom-seeking,
precision, will create borders
- and what lives on borders? Complexity/chaos
dynamics and so the concept
of emergence/transcendence/phase-transition etc
etc.... IOW we can detect
a link here of differentiating with the notion of
spiritual (regardless
of 'fact' or 'fiction') in the context of
transcendence (that focus on
'betterment' drives things - and so capitalism
is the 'best fit' of an
economic system to these processes, as democracy is
the 'best fit' as a
political system)
What is implied here? A property of differentiating
is the formation of
fundamentalist groups where the natural fragmentation
that comes with the
differentiating (recall all of that complexity/chaos
input to things) forces
isolationism. Combine that with the
differentiated form of the 'spiritual'
and these groups can be religious
or secular in their fundamentalism.
What else emerges? The
fragmentation, together with high energy expenditure
and a focus on
'betterment', elicits competition and a focus on
universalisation - the
precision means EVERYTHING needs a label, but since
there is so much, so
UNIVERSALS are used - communication is more along the
lines of using
stereotyping etc. We see here a transition from the 'organic'
but vague
nature of the species to the 'mechanistic' but precise nature of
the
conscious species. With this concentration, this distillation, of
species
qualities in general into particular individuals comes a focus on
each
individual becoming a universal. This ultimate form of
fragmentation
focuses on self-autonomy, being self-sufficient and so not
dependent upon,
nor responsible for, anyone else.
With this hugely
competitive focus develops technology. That technology
elicits data that
reflects 'best practice' dynamics. Those dynamics are
incorporated into
each individual's general behaviour (iow we all need to
adopt the latest
in weapon systems etc to 'keep up'). From here we have
different
outsides, SAME insides. What do we get with this form of
structure? Phase
transition; the individuals start to group (at the
corporate level this
is in monopolies and corporations developing their own
perspectives of
reality - they are now starting to build their own schools,
pensioner
resorts, and so promotion of the corporation as its 'own
little
world')
Can we see this sort of behaviour in other life
forms? Yes - flocking
behaviour where individuals making LOCAL
distinctions elicit a non-local
expression in the behaviour of the
collective. The difference is that in
phase transition all the
individuals start to 'think alike'.
Dominating all of the above is a
focus on clear identification of
individual/collective - to an extreme of
exaggerating that identity and
associate it with some 'universal' sense
of the 'spiritual' - IOW
consciousness is considered
'originating'.
With this comes fundamentalism, the 'religious right',
and other
'specialist' perspectives that can reflect elements of another
property of
over-differentiating - psychosis, where we disappear totally
into our own
'little world'. Note here that the strong focus on XOR-ing,
on
differentiating converts all meaning from a semantics position to
a
concentrated form of semantics we label as syntax - all that matters
is
one's location, one's position in the hierarchy (using logic
operators, the
XOR focus gives way to the IMP operator - the only
asymmetric operator in
the set of logic operators - and in our brains the
bias is asymmetric
overall)
Given all of the above, to which would
you associate differentiating/XOR?
more:
idealism /
, / n.
1 the practice of forming or following after
ideals, esp. unrealistically
(cf. realism).
2 the representation of
things in ideal or idealized form.
3 imaginative treatment.
4 Philos.
any of various systems of thought in which the objects of
knowledge are
held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind
(cf.
realism).
OR
materialism / / n.
1 a tendency
to consider material possessions and physical comfort to be
more
important than spiritual values.
2 Philos. a the opinion that nothing
exists but matter and its movements and
modifications. b the doctrine
that consciousness and will are wholly due to
material agency.
3 Art a
tendency to lay stress on the material aspect of
objects.
?
|