Re: Dialectical view on the goals and means of Upper Ontology
Hi Alex,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Alexander Povolotsky
> Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2005 10:53 PM
> To: rintec@SOHU.COM; gruber@ksl.stanford.edu
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Dialectical view on the goals and means of Upper Ontology
>
>
<snip>
> As I have mentioned before on this list (but it was mostly
> overlooked or ignored as non-practical) - from the dialectical
> prospective the Human society is not the last "creme-of-the-crop"
> node in the endless chain of the evolutional progression.
>
> Therefore I have doubts (as I have expressed before) that the
> human "Natural Language" is appropriate and sufficient agent for
> the knowledge sharing, considering above mentioned "long haul
> prospective" dialectical point of view.
>
The "Human Natural Language" is the product of neurology, something sourced in a lot of other life forms on this planet. Since the "Language of the Neuron" reflects the general adaptation to the dynamics of the universe, where those dynamics or their representations have been internalised, so the core qualities of such a language represent 'all there is'.
> Is it "wise" to impose the means of "Natural Language" onto such
> global knowledge sharing ?
> Are there better alternatives, which express "being" more
> "naturally" and "globally" than any existent human "Natural
> Language" (which are so many on the Earth as of now) ?
>
The creation of categories from the neuron's focus on differentiating(FM, pulse focus) and integrating (AM, wave focus) has allows us to develop the successful maps we have of reality - if at times expressed in imaginative ways. However, there are still issues here in that the high precision focus of our analytical skills introduces qualities that appear to be 'alien' to reality - specifically the exaggeration of STATIC concepts to the exclusion of DYNAMIC concepts.
We can trace this 'problem' to a consequence of high energy input, on maximising bandwidth to get a 'clear' picture, where that energy input has a reciprocal relationship with subjective time experience. From such experiences we get a sense of the 'eternal' and even consider such concepts as time slowing, stopping, or even being reversible. - That might be fine with a mechanistic form of time, but time is linked more with the thermodynamic and so the 'arrow' of time.
Instinctively it appears that if we are competitive, high precision, differentiating, in our thinking, then we will primarily consider REPLACEMENT as the only solution to problems. Tone down that energy and we move to being more cooperative, integrating in our thinking. In that state we will primarily consider COEXISTENCE as the only solution to problems. This gets us into the notions of ANALYTICAL negation ('start again') vs DIALECTICAL negation ('keep the useful bits'). IOW HOW we think will 'bias' our solutions to problems where those solutions may not be the 'best' - coexistence may be the better choice than replacement, but being 'replacement' oriented naturally so we can make 'bad' choices even if we think we have thoughout it all out carefully! - in coming up with ontologies, so an all-encompassing one has to cover all of these aspects - IOW give a replacement-oriented group the task of coming up with an ontology, or template for, so it will reflect that replacement f!
ocus and so miss 'half' of what is going on in reality ;-)
Since our PARTS oriented, STATIC, perspectives more than often excludes any strong, formal, recognition of the arrow of time, so our LOGIC requires updating to reflect BOTH 'sides' - the static and the dynamic, the analytical and the dialectical; the precision of the former with the 'reality' of the latter.
In current logic, analytical logic, such representations of "IF A THEN B" are misleading in that the use of the term "THEN" comes with a temporal aspect that does not exist at this level of static precision. To IMPLY something does not allow for temporal implications, as in Y follows X in time, only that with Y comes X - a form of 'universal' relationship, free of dependencies - but there ARE dependencies, or more so one universal dependency, the passage of thermodynamic time.
The temporal representation means we have to introduce such subtle differences as:
(A) IF X, SO Y (spacial focus, no time element and X and Y coexist)
(B) IF X, THEN Y (temporal focus, Y comes AFTER X temporally and as such X can be REPLACED by Y)
There is also the concept of enantiodromia. I find this comes up in the focus on extracting particulars where things come in PAIRS when extracted from the WHOLE. If I define A and 'push' that definition, pour energy into it, so it gets to a point where identification is no longer possible by what it is, but by what it isnt, and so A becomes ~A; this happens structurally as well as temporally. The WHOLE is the two, the AND. Our method of analysis, use of XOR, forces the symmetric form of dichotomy to treat each element as if 'whole' when they are not - the A/~A are REPRESENTATIONS of the WHOLE (the universe of discourse in this +/- form of dichotomy and as such, push one end and you will 'pop' into the other.) (the commonest of examples of enantiodromia temporally is of birth to death; a thermodynamic process)
The realm of the analytical is XOR/IMP oriented and focused upon the 'point' (the discretisation of Mathematics reflects this change from the geometric to the algebraic where it aids in being more 'precise'). Due to the analytic's precise nature so it excludes/marginalises linkage (AND), other than that IMPLIED by IMP (and so unidirectional), due to its precise nature - but reality is not like that.
The AND factor comes in two flavours, a concentrated, rigidly linear format where the focus is on linkage WITHIN what has been differentiated. The other flavour is a more vague, relaxed, format where focus is on linkage BETWEEN elements.
The XOR/AND dynamic, where the AND is the second flavour listed above, is manifest in such areas as sensory paradox processing where the AND is in the form of a 'complex line drawing' and the XOR is in the form of, using the Necker cube example, two cubes sharing the same space.
The other form of AND, the first flavour, emerges as we zoom-in on a hierarchy - the general, semantics-oriented, 'feel' for what is under analysis becomes increasingly concentrated, particularised, until the semantics turns into its only form of meaning - syntax. With this form of AND so the only focus is on one's position in relation to before/after, above/below; the linkage is 'tight' and rigidly sequenced, totally focused on identity in relation to others in the hierarchy.
This form of AND operates WITHIN the elements derived from XOR - the past example, given in a previous email, was in the differences in human experience through drug use - amphetamines elicit the internal AND nature, LSD/ecstacy the external AND nature. Since our neurology is solidly tied to differentiating/integrating, so any 'modifiers' of that neurology, its dynamics, serve as examples of differences between notions of differentiating/integrating in general.
and as such, the above properties of the modifiers would apply across all neuron dependent life forms and so not be specific to us, but our exaggerations, our consciousness nature, would amplify the effects - thus amphetamines elicit an extremely strong sense of 'pointedness' in the form of the sense of a powerful 'self'. The behavioural differences are such that amphetamines allow for claims of BEING 'god', whereas the hallucinogenics are more into sensing a 'relationship WITH god' etc (and so 'god in the head' syndrome - aka "runner's high" - there is a sensory harmonics focus on colours/chords as compared to the 'fundamental' harmonic we experience with amphetamines).
From here we move to the form of representations of differentiating/integrating. Nature appears to have developed along the millions of years of 'survival of the fittest' - the focus being on (a) fitting into the context (reactive bias) and (b) taking over the context, assert one's own (proactive bias).
Language, be it of the neuron or of our extensions through consciousness, deals with communicating (a) and/or (b) - be it real or imagined. (a) is integration focused, (b) is differentiation focused (push others away to bring out self). The 'variations' are derived by recursion of the integrate/differentiate dichotomy; each row derived from the recursion is representative of a finite language - each 'cell' in each row of the recursion can serve as a 'ground' for some interpretation of reality, and as such elicit a specialist language out of the general. Note that each cell as such is a QUALITY, not a 'letter' but a 'feeling' and so is more 'immediate' rather than the delay we get using letters to derive a quality.
Furthermore, for each row, being a finite 'language', only analogy/metaphor can be used to describe 'all there is'. As such each row is a reflection of the 'whole' but in finer details, and you will find that each quality of each cell within any row is applied to all of the other cells in that row, extractable using the XOR operator. In this extraction, each cell is found to be made up of the equivalent of a 'genetic code' made up of a string of all of the other cells in that row being expressed through that particular cell serving as context. This is reflective of a 'superposition' where the expressed quality is made-up of summing waveforms representing the other qualities (this gets us into topology, there is no discreteness, more so exaggerations of energy across a surface that distorts it to reflect patterns we then label as 'discrete')
In other words, the "power set" concept in formal language definitions, applied to the elements of each row (where the row is set A and possible expressions are in SEQUENCES and so A*) is lacking some content in that it considers sequences of the qualities, the cells as letters, but in fact we find the qualities can stand alone and in that standing express ALL of the other qualities. This form of expression is more 'parallel' than serial in that the parallel reflects ALL aspects, all qualities, of the language but 'skewed' by the particular bias to a particular cell/quality.
If we then take these qualities and represent them serially, in letter and words, so we introduce finer precision but also can lose contact with the immediate nature of these qualities.
If we recurse enough we reach a continuum of qualities that becomes the 'background' over which we impose our models (e.g. derivation of lattice structures reflect the spectrum in a row of recursion from 'lowest' to 'highest', local to universal categories etc)
Given this 'continuum' so we allow for the imposition of models such as Peirce. If we review Peirce's 'triadic' perspectives, it is more 'quadratic' or more so the 'refinement' of a dyadic::
REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(STIMULUS,RESPONSE) first time and then comes recursion:
REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(REPRESENTATION) ad infinitum if possible. As such, the representations are in the form of ROWS, finite languages, that develop through mediation, we make finer distinctions.
Thus the stimulus/response position is the most energy conserving. 'Issues' will elicit moving 'up' to a level of mediation/representation that then feeds the response process (a habit) and generalises the stimulus process (a symbol). In so doing we 'refine' the stimulus/response process and conserve energy over the long term through the generalisation of the particular event into a potential representation of a universal.
What Peirce labels as 'thirdness' is an oscillation across two formats - mediation/representation.
Firstness = stimulus (what draws attention)
Secondness = response (what we 'paint' that stimulus with - for Peirce, aesthetically or ethically or logically)
(from there we get into X OF Y (secondness of firstness is NOT possible) compared to X IN Y (secondness IN firstness IS possible - SinSign)
Note we are focusing on mapping Peirce to the neurology, not the neurology to Peirce. In that mapping so we can bring out aspects of Peirce that dont 'fit', that are examples of his idealism and rigid focus on triadic perspectives.
Secondness has access to the labels, the representations created when we come across something 'new' or 'different' to existing labels (the CONTEXT of secondness thus elicits the notions of icon, indices, symbol where those for a dimension of sign development - and so icons become symbols that, through refurbishment, mediation, can be returned to an iconic format) As such, mindless stimulus/response is an oscillation across stimulus/response, firstness/secondness.
Paradox is where representation fails due to:
(a) confusion of XOR/AND states by our senses (necker cube etc)
(b) not enough universal categories created (and so LOCAL context is required to derive meaning out of a superposition of possibles - Peirce got into this 'loop' with thirdness and mediation XOR representation - his notion of a 'portemento' sign touched on this issue of superpositions but the sign reflects the 'sticking together' of elements of two signs (e.g. BInary and digITs to BITS) rather than their sharing of the same space and the relabelling of that space int one sign with context determining the 'bias' in expression - and so we touch on the use of the gerunds to label noun-verb aspects of a quality)
(c) no matter how many categories we come up with, we still experience 'oscillations' - be they in milliseconds of millenia - re 'something'. This implies that that 'something' exists outside of our sensory range (and that includes the range of our sensory extensions, our technology)
The 'traditional' triadic perspective includes consciousness as one of the elements and as such is 'limiting' in its perspectives due to the fact that mediation stops once it is complete (or has the potential to do so). I think Peirce intuitively recognised this but did not flesh it out such that his 'triadic' signs development wandered off into gaga land (IMHO ;-)) The issue here is on the failure to differentiate the dynamic from the analytic clearly - the idealism of the analytic favoured 'static' perspectives as 'eternal' and the dynamics as some form of 'inconvenience', something that 'got in the way' of appreciating the 'ideal' forms. This of course is 'rubbish', as analysis of complexity/chaos dynamics shows ;-)
This the dialectical perspective has been 'impoverished' due to its apparent LACK of precision. From the perspective of our species-nature, of our interactions with reality the issue is more of being OVER precise, moving PAST "AS IS" reality and into "AS INTERPRETED", the reality of our consciousness, and in so doing being one step REMOVED from reality "AS IS".
This being over-precise is reflected in our Mathematics and in the creation of triadic models - we have to REMOVE the triadic 'arm' to map reality 'as is'. The realm of the entropic, of the universe's version of 'perfect order' - no highs, no lows - is a realm of equilibrium that is to us 'death'. With that sense of total integration comes a sense of the total disappearance of identity, of a sense of 'self', and that is threatening to us such that, for collectives STRONGLY into promotion of self rather than species the preferred path is to the 'eternal' - fundamentalism takes over and in so doing becomes a threat to the survival of the species (socialist perspectives are thus seen as 'evil' etc when in fact it is those perspectives that can balance-out the 'extremes' of the more 'aristocratic' perspectives and so ground us in our species - the WHOLE is both aristocratic-egalitarian, with a dynamic across that whole spanning generations and so out of awareness of individuals !
- see refs etc in my page on history etc - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html)
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au