|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:50:20 +0000 (GMT)|
It appears to me that knowledge is a product of the visual and mental processing of the details of the world (reality), which is then associated with verbal stimuli only to be used to evoke a close equivalent of the original visual input in other people. All that is a process of human image processing with similar changes and transformations of the signals used in ICT, and understanding is the name of getting the picture right with the help our own experience and memories.
Therefore any description of the world we have tends to be a reconsruction in two dimensions of the original image – this is why you (have objects and properties, whereas relations are not visible, save the spatial and temporal ones. That is also why you have relations that correspond to such perception of the world in time and space. And all that leads to lexical knowledge, a fake knowledge in comparison with procedural knowledge (know-how).
But relations are different, as a default, they are hidden, sometimes on purpose. Relations are the ultimate subject of all sciences and algebra is the science of relations.
Core ontologies may be integrated (no use of merging them) by using the categories of objects, properties and relations only. What should be new, however, that you do not want a picture to reconstruct, you want creation (Genezis) to be reconstructed and therefore you need to deal with time and a process model of the working of the mind. You now should turn to reflective thinking as they say in the PISA document too.
Had you not been busy with first order and formal logic, or would it not be a controversial issue whether to share or withhold knowledge and information accross the human condition, you could be far more ahead in solving many problems, including Machine Translation, Library and other Classifications, Curriculum Design, etc.
The point is that you are stuck with the meaning of meaning and the association of meaning with words, especially with one word allegedly representing a concept.
How is that for an introduction and a first posting?
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] History of the Atomic Hypothesis, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] meaning and core ontologies, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Extended Deadliines for Enterprises *as* Systems Conference, mkhettinger|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] meaning and core ontologies, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|