Re: Re: Fleshing out Sowa's top/bottom dimension
John,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> John Bateman
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2005 10:14 PM
> To: Chris Lofting
> Cc: 'SUO WG'
> Subject: Re: Fleshing out Sowa's top/bottom dimension
>
>
> How about moving this discussion to another list / thread.
The discussion covers EXACTLY what is covered on this list. If your limited, linguistics-focused, perspective on ontologies limits your access to the 'big picture' that is not my problem, nor JS's problem, nor anyone elses - it is all your problem.
Manically listing ontologies will not give you access to the core as quick as understanding the method used to derive them.
> My delete button is getting worn.
buy better technology - or use filtering in your email client to pass things to dev/null. If you want to shelter yourself from perspectives that 'upset you' then you are putting values ahead of facts and as such being 'not worthy' in the context of focusing on innovative perspectives on core ontology creation etc (and for one with a supposed linguist approach I am surprised that you show no interest in the "Language of the Vague" - the realm of the neuron. That lack of interest indicating a more 'idealist' perspective on things, taking labels as if 'the thing' ;-)).
My points re JS's perspective are valid - he is trying to operate without thinking, based on his specialist experiences 'pushing' him. The IDM material is light-years ahead of what he is doing re categorisation of meanings etc (and the material has been on the WWW since 1995) and that is due to its focus on the core of all meaning, our neurology. You CANNOT understand what is going on re information processing and core ontology identifications WITHOUT reference to what we know about the neurology - understand the METHOD and all else follows, such that given the method abstraction is possible to encode the method in silicon.
The sad fact about working from linguistics is one is starting in the realm of EXPRESSION and so half-way up the ladder rather than from the bottom. In so doing there will be found LOTS of differentiation, LOTS of labels, LOTS of LOCAL CONTEXT patterns with only VAGUE notions of what seeds those patterns. Move into the unconscious and the realm of the neuron and its language and things start to make sense. Read through IDM, read the references etc.
EACH neuron in our brain reflects the differentiate/integrate dichotomy at work - and there are millions upon millions of neurons. What gives us access to the method is that these neurons practice 'synchronisation' and so form networks that act as if ONE neuron. If we follow this up to consciousness we find that our brains act as if a neuron; SAME generic dynamics but in more DETAIL, higher resolution, and so allowing for 'emergence' where the increased complexity in the support systems allows for the development of complex forms not sustainable in 'weaker' support systems - and so hierarchy.
As I said in the other email, ANY dichotomy is unfoldable into an ontology, and so a model of 'reality'. If each neuron is reflective of an ontology then there are millions, billions, of them. BUT, due to the mechanisms of the neurology so all LOCAL, SPECIALIST, ontologies are in fact METAPHORS for the core ontology - the patterns of meaning derived from integrating/differentiating.
Genetics will give a complete mapping of differentiating/integrating POTENTIALS and nurture will then ACTUALISE potentials. That actualisation is determined by local context and as such works ad hoc. Thus, without knowing the full set of potentials, and so aiming to actualise as much as possible to operate 'smoothly' in any context, we 'struggle' trying to 'fit in'. Given understanding of the layout of the potentials so we can work towards actualising them and so reduce 'struggle' - and in so doing reduce the number of ontologies that get off on the wrong foot and so lie incomplete all over the place and/or de-fuse those ontologies that are metaphors but are taken literally and killed-for - e.g. fundamentalism.
Education PRIOR to specialisation allows for one to 'tone down' some of the extreme perspectives that can come out of specialisation.
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au