I realise the difference below. All i want to say that the working of the
eye and the brains is crucial to our effort to revert to an output that is
close to the visual domineering input on our senses. We cannot produce a
picture by usng our body to communicate articulate messages, only your voice
working in time dimenison can do that.
However both primates and other mammals can think and so can a toddler
and a fetus at the upper level of ontology and we switch from eidetic vision
and thinking after we have lerant to speak, write etc.
Now that verbally coded information tends to depict pictures as a means
of identificationm manly by name giving (labels,headings and titles), whereas
messages carry verbs which are the basic identifiers of relations. Those
relations are much richer than those used by science at the moment. Meaning is
not confined to words, and no word has any meaning in itself, context is part
of meanig and context is used as necessary, including the sender and the
receiver (with their knowledge).
This is why Chomsky has also realised that syntax is of a second
import.
Frank
That point is more true of primates than other mammals, since
they
live in trees, swinging from branch to branch, and good
hand-eye
coordination is a matter of life or death:
> It appears
to me that knowledge is a product of the visual and
> mental processing
of the details of the world (reality)...
But other senses are also
important, and there are aspects of the
world for which sensory aids, such
as telescopes, microscopes,
microphones, seismographs, etc., are
necessary.
> 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.
Words are an important
adjunct to imagery. For an example of
a person who has overcome
serious handicaps in language, I suggest
that you read the books by Temple
Grandin. She is an autistic
woman who managed to overcome her
handicap to a large extent.
She even earned a PhD in animal husbandry. (Her
handicap has
given her a great insight into animal thinking).
For
more information, see her web site:
http://www.templegrandin.com/Her books and articles
(along with other work in psychology and
psycholinguistics) can help give
some perspective on how far
thinking without words can go and what language
adds.
John Sowa
______
Hi,
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?
Cheers,
Frank
Genezistan
___________________________________________________________
Message
Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared
Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx