Re: [ontolog-forum] meaning and core ontologies

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Azamat and all,

My appologies.Pardon me for improper wording partly due to my usual enthusiam and elation, and partly due to my non-native English. I have been expecting questions with the ope that we can then synchronize our terminology and/oroints or observations. Instead, I have been given advice where to look for reading to understand you better. Now I accept that to understand me better, I really have to calm down and present my ideas in a different form though, not just trying to algn up to a thread.

The section below below should read like this after rethinking my message:

I believe that animals and very young chldren have the faculty of thinking, as we all go through a birth as mammals, probably we are aware of nothing then existence of life in an ever increasing manner and that is reflected in our minds.So the story of Genezis is a story of the indiividual rise of consciousness, which consciousness comprises the broadest categories we have as they correspond to the experience. In this process we repeat the filogenetic cycle and the story of acquiring a language individually must be very much like the process of human evolution with respect to his/her communicative skills.

Now we rely on pictures for thinking (and thoughts, etc.), a subject not properly defined anywhere in the wikipedia or elsewhere, but science relies on a disciplined mind (John Dewey) which calls for proper definitions. In addiiton to that any training in thinking skills as in education follows the principle to go from known to unknown (the old, and the near or the acustomed is not to which but with what we attend - J. Dewey) and from the simple to the more complex. You alsohave repetition, verification against experience, etc. to enforce any learning. The problem of converting from pictures to texts and vice versa is a basic obstacle in synchronising thoughts as we have no direct access to this process, but the process must be obvious enough to anybody.

Coming back to meaning, meaning is not defined at all, even by professors writing a book on Semantics, as the case may be in Hungarian.And it is also clear that meaning is not sought in texts only, but elsewhere, with reason too ("man is a meaning seeking animal")  as C.Simonyi found it his next subject of research in intent (intentsoft) which is nearly the same as meaning, sense2.

Yes, there are too many things that I would like to talk about, sorry about that.

 

 

 ----- Original Message ----
From: Azamat <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008 9:44:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] meaning and core ontologies



Ferenc,

 

This forum mostly consists of very intelligent and polite people. So any infelicity can be excused and pardoned, of course, if it is not repeated several times. Since somebody sensible should try avoid such ... convoluted wordings:

''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.''

""...knowledge is a product of the visual and mental processing of the details of the world (reality)'', etc.

It is taxing your mind to read these sorts of messages. For you need to read it again and again, and finally put your best interpretation, having nothing to do with the message.

Still, i think there can be something original in your messages; but it is your duty to send me a well formulated thought.

 

Azamat Abdoullaev 

----- Original Message -----

From: FERENC KOVACS

To: [ontolog-forum]

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:27 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] meaning and core ontologies

 

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.

   

Thanks for giving directions

 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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)