Thank you for reading my comments and creating this thread (02)
>Len, sorry not to have followed up earlier.
>On 18 Feb you had written (now at
>in the thread "Re: [ontolog-forum] What words mean -- What this
>thread means" though I have opened a new thread here):
>> To be constructive I did try to provoke a substantiative
>> discussion in my post shortly after this thread spawned from the
>> original "Axiomatic Ontology". Let me try again (last time I
>(So I hope you will not regret that final attempt, despite the
>demagoguery it leads to here too!)
I have been following discussions on this forum since it began years ago. It
often is an interesting reading, but its mission is still not clear to me.
Lately it looks like the mission is to seek out the ultimate truth about the
World, while proving at the same time that this mission is impossible. I see a
lot of argument for a sake of argument. Without a clear focus any discussion
becomes a spiritual excesize with some elements of rationality,- in other
words: modern form of alchemy. I think that is how outside observers like
myself see it: may be one day one of these discussions will result in something
by shear power of accident and human imagination. In a meantime I have not seen
a single thread that lived up to its subject. Let's hope this one is going to
be an exception. (04)
>> "It appears to me that this discussion started from the need to
>> have a common ground that is more solid than one afforded by
>> established processes. It is clear from everything said so far
>> that there is no way to establish a universal ground, even when
>> all efforts are made to remove ambiguities, such as the case
>> with mathematics. Perhaps it is what Pifagor (or was it someone
>> else?) meant when he said something like "... give me a ground
>> and I will overturn the World". SO what we should be looking for
>> is at best a temporary grounding of our ideas and efforts. This
>> is what Kuhn's paradigm is all about.
>Though it may not always seem so from my scribblings, your quest
>for a "more solid common ground" is very much what I target with
>"The Mainstream" as I have gradually been broaching that
>stupendously pretentious notion in my various posts to this forum
>during the past few months. Sure, the many angles I have been
>taking may look like random waffling, but there is some method in
>the madness of taking chance prompts from the forum. There is
>surely no nice neat logical sequence to any new paradigm.
In my experience, trying to create new paradigm is futal exersize - paradigms
are emergent phenomena, or more precisely - epi-phenomena (side effects of
creativity). The focus of innovation should not be a paradigm, but rather
specific theoretical or practical objective, call it simply "application". (06)
>As would-be common ground The Mainstream as depicted is
>clearly a process, not a foundation or a final construction. But
>Kuhn's paradigm shifts are merely the more spectacular
>manifestations of "evolution as a series of mini-revolutions".
>(Who can tell us who said that first?)
>That latter view well represents the effect of the "Koestler
>creativity" I have just introduced in my "3rd instalment" (see its
>item 7), in recognition of Arthur Koestler's wide-ranging analysis
>yet pointed conclusion in his 1964 book, The Act of Creation.
>I am busy building up the picture of the entire operation of
>Information Systems as a continuously creative process, though one
>which people - ordinary users - will be able to help adapt towards
>better meeting people's needs.
What people's needs are you trying to meet? - that is the question.
In my view the need for symbolic grounding is very clear: if some application
is to be constructed using symbolic computation, then the symbols better be
grounded or else application will collapse shortly after it is constructed (if
it is ever constructed) -this is what happens with software applications. (08)
>> So the question should be (correct me if I am wrong): what are
>> the mechanisms available to us for better grounding. Now I
>> really sound like an engineer.
>Yes, fortunately you do. John Sowa too tends to claim that
>engineer's ground, on this and the SUO forum. Indeed, the more of
>us the better!
>And my answer to your question is precisely MACK, The Mainstream
>Architecture for Common Knowledge, with its notion of the
>conceptual Form, implemented by a MACK-compliant AOS or
>Application Operating System for helping people create,
>manipulate, fine-tune and extend CK or Common Knowledge into the
>many provisionally appropriate niches for it at every level of
>abstraction or refinement.
In my experience software architecture should be bottom-up and scale-free. I am
yet to see how MACK can address most basic software architecture requirements,
and then achieve high level of abstraction required by Common Knowledge - this
is where you need a method which would allow aggregation of simple predicates
into complex concepts. How do you propose to do that? (010)
>There is as yet no such implemented AOS, but with my present
>series of posts to this forum I am trying to awake interest and
>set up collaboration towards refining and launching a Boot AOS so
>that the open market can bootstrap itself into full exploitation
>of the evident yet hitherto-hidden potential of The Mainstream and
>its already-ubiquitous processes.
Nothing like that is implemented because the question above is not answered (to
my knowledge) (012)
>I believe such a launch, with a little help of the right kinds,
>building on what is already coded and running, could take place
>within one year of a team's getting to work on it.
First, you need explain how this can be done. I am looking forward to that. (014)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (017)