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)
|