ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontolog-forum] Re: Unambiguous context information

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Bob Smith" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:19:58 -0700
Message-id: <200505251715.j4PHFogS011837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
And a good trick is being able to formulate questions that raise "even
better" questions that expose more context for those acting on "answers"...
;-}    (01)

B    (02)

C. West Churchman's Inquiring Systems, and Mason-Mitroff's popularization of
this technique was fun for a while.    (03)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 10:06 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Unambiguous context information    (04)

I only have questions - not answers  ;-)    (05)

This is an interesting topic.  My observation has been that most humans 
are deceived by their own perception of reality.  I heard a noise, 
therefore there was a noise.  I live in a temporally-sequentially 
perceived three dimensional state therefore everyone else perceived 
things the same way.    (06)

I am extremely interested in Nicolas's views on this since NASA 
obviously has to acknowledge the fact that there are other models for 
existence.    (07)

D    (08)

Bob Smith wrote:    (09)

>Hi,
>
>If you allow me to add a pragmatic question....about your point of truth
>tables:
>
>You said: 
>
>  
>
>>>>There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability
>>>>        
>>>>
>to contort truth tables.
>
>  
>
>>>>Terrestrial proximity (how close is the thing to a terrestrial body)
>>>>        
>>>>
>Temporal Temperature Existential State (example: solid, gaseous, liquid)
>Granularity of perception precision (to a human in an airplane, the lines
in
>the desserts are pictures, to an ant climbing them, they are simply mounds
>of dirt) Number of planes of perception (3d, 4d, *) Energy (humans perceive
>such a small band of the overall spectrum.  even something like magnetic
>energy can twist apparent "truths")
>
>========================================
>So when decision makers have decision tables and truth tables and some
>Robert's Rules of Order for debate on consequences, how might resource
>policy be developed?
>
>My context is the effort of RAND in the early 1970's to model Presidential
>warfare decision making contexts (Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision,
>Little Brown, 1971; and subsequent context models including Rational,
>Political, Bureaucratic, and "chaos theory".)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bob  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
>Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:29 AM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Unambiguous context information
>
>Nicholas:
>
>Many thanks for taking the time to parse my initial thoughts.  The paper 
>only touches the surface of where this thinking may go.  I will read the 
>Dolce next to understand more.  Here are some additional thoughts to
ponder:
>
>Where does one draw the line between something being a universal truth 
>and a perception/assertion?  If I smash two rocks together, it makes a 
>sound.  Sure - on earth if there is a gaseous environment to transmit 
>the shock waves.  What if it happens very slowly by two rocks being 
>forced together as part of continental shift?  It still makes a sound, 
>yet it would likely be imperceivable to humans due to the long distance 
>between frequency peaks.
>
>A rock is matter.  In the context of human perception, it appears solid, 
>yet it is not.  If we examined it under close enough scrutiny, it is a 
>matrix of related bits of energy. 
>
><quote who="me">
>Are humans' axioms of 'universal truths' tainted by our own arrogance in 
>assuming our perceptions are ubiquitous?
></quote>
>
>A rock has mass.  How can you measure the mass.  In the context of 
>static terrestrial existence, it is easy to assign a value based on 
>relating the gravitational pull to some scale.  In space, the measure of 
>mass is completely relative to the velocity contrast to the perceiver.
>
>There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability 
>to contort truth tables.
>
>Terrestrial proximity (how close is the thing to a terrestrial body)
>Temporal
>Temperature
>Existential State (example: solid, gaseous, liquid)
>Granularity of perception precision (to a human in an airplane, the 
>lines in the desserts are pictures, to an ant climbing them, they are 
>simply mounds of dirt)
>Number of planes of perception (3d, 4d, *)
>Energy (humans perceive such a small band of the overall spectrum.  even 
>something like magnetic energy can twist apparent "truths")
>
>There are probably many more human being related contexts too.
>
>I am definitely going to read the Dolce work you referenced. Sounds very 
>interesting.
>
>Duane
>
>Internet Business Logic wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Nicholas --
>>
>>You wrote:
>>
>>/If you really want unambiguous context information, it ought be 
>>spelled out in a way that is sufficiently formal and sound to make 
>>reasoning valuable and useful. /
>>
>>I'd suggest that a _representation shift_ can help with this. 
>>
>>As you may know, we have been suggesting that reasoning directly with 
>>open vocabulary English can help to solve these kinds of problems.  
>>Why describe the problem and its solution in English, then try to 
>>solve it in a non-English notation?  That's the source of most of the 
>>problems.
>>
>>Although reasoning directly with open vocabulary English may sound 
>>like blue sky, there is a system that does this, albeit with a subtle 
>>trade off to avoid dictionary construction yet get precise English 
>>semantics.  (The underlying logical semantics is model-theoretic.)
>>
>>The system is live, online, with a number of Ontology and other 
>>examples, at the site below.  The author- and user interface is simply 
>>a browser. The approach is described in the e-Government 
>>presentation.  There's also a recent paper at 
>>http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 .
>>
>>Thanks in advance for comments.
>>
>>                                                     -- Adrian
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Internet Business Logic  --  online at www.reengineeringllc.com
>>
>>Reengineering LLC,  PO Box 1412,  Bristol,  CT 06011-1412,  USA
>>
>>Phone 860 583 9677     Mobile 860 830 2085     Fax 860 314 1029
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (010)




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>