Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@comcast.net>
Cc: "Alexander Povolotsky" <pevnev@juno.com>; <abdoul@CYTANET.COM.CY>;
<gary.berg-cross@EM-I.COM>; <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 14:46
Subject: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
> Jay,
>
> The issue that Alex raised concerned the use of
> the words "objective" and "subjective" to classify
> different ways of describing the same phenomena.
> I made the point that the distinction is very hard
> to define precisely and that any discussion that
> involves those terms would be clearer if those words
> were avoided.
>
> Your example is an excellent illustration of my point:
Your reply is an excellent illustration of my point, John. Merely circular
reasoning won't address this problem. You (below) would describe the example
objectively, since that is implied by what it means to describe
'independently of the nature of the observer'. That is not an analysis (nor
explanation, nor even a deduction) -- you have simply assumed the
conclusion, with vague premises which you suggest might imply it.
The question was: how do you arrive at the objective conclusion ('The penny
is circular'), from the subjective premises? How do you justify, e.g., the
'existence' claims, the 'assumption of rigidity', etc., from the 'data
stream', in which the supposedly perceived object's shape is elliptical? How
do you infer that? How would a robot do it? That's the crux of the AI
problem. Your non-analysis avoids all problems -- assumption does have the
virtue of theft over toil.
Of course, making the distinction calls for clarification of it, as only a
limited amount of traction is gained in making it, without further analysis.
Inquiry begins with problems and distinctions, vague or difficult, which
analysis seeks to clarify. Getting clear on this distinction ('objective
truth'/'subjective truth') is a goal, and how is the goal to be attained
unless the distinction
is recognized and the question is asked?
Jay
>
> JH> objectively the penny is circular. Subjectively it
> > appears elliptical (say). Reconciling or explaining the
> > difference between those judgments remains a difficulty
> > for philosophy, and is even a matter of urgency in AI.
> > What needs to be explained is the difference between those
> > statements; there is a difference between appearance and
> > reality, unless I am deceived.
>
> I would describe the example in a way that is independent
> of the nature of the perceiver, which could be a human, an
> animal, or a robot. Following are the conditions:
>
> 1. There is an object X, whose image projected on a 2-D
> surface (retina, film, screen, etc.) is elliptical.
>
> 2. Multiple projections of X on different 2-D surfaces at different
> angles and distances produce ellipses of different sizes and shapes.
>
> 3. Under the assumption that X is a rigid body whose size and
> shape is constant, all the projections can be reconciled by
> a model of X as a thin circular cylinder of a thickness h and
> radius r (where h and r are computed from the projections).
>
> This analysis illustrates my point: Alex wanted to use the words
> "objective" and "subjective" as a basis for drawing further conclusions.
> He has every right to use the words as he prefers. But I was making
> the point that those words (or the associated concepts) are too vague
> to support detailed analysis. The analysis I just gave avoids any
> problems one might encounter in AI or philosophy.
>
> John
>