Frank
That is not necessarily the point of view of
all, and we do not necessarily want to get into the evolution-creation endless loop!
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c)
313-204-1740 www.vangent.com
Professional viewpoints do
not necessarily imply organizational endorsement.
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:05
PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein
and the pictures
Len, you did not like my previous mail at all?
However, I believe I have no direct experience of
any direct (raditation, energy dose or any metaphysical let alone ESP impact on
me to identify or to calculate wtih.So probably everything I can think of is
ephemeral, which is alright for me. But I miss the attitude of man towards life
that was allegedly taken by God in Genezis. God created a number of things
and he SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.Why cannot man come to that end of the creative
cycle?
----- Original Message ----
From: Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 31 July, 2008 4:26:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures
Frank,
>If you co-operate with your environment smoothly, you do not need to
communicate at all.
Thank you for this observation. This may be stated succinctly as: communication
is ephemeral. I would go further and conclude that communication is not a
primary phenomenon of nature, but rather an epi-phenomenon (or phantom). The
actual emergent phenomenon is culture (or any other form of self-organization).
This may explain why physicist have difficulties explaining communication as
phenomenon that seemingly observed in "action at distance". The same
with nature of information.
>This also means that thinking is not tied up with using an NL, and the
building blocks of thinking are not concepts, especially not words.
I think that thinking is epi-phenomenon as well. So no matter who you dicect it
- you will get some meta-physical notions like concepts. You can call it
language or anything else. All this things are epi-phenomena taking place in
semantics dimension that exists only as emergent link between pragmatic
dimension(goal) and semantic dimension(observation).
Len Yabloko, Owner/CEO
Next Generation Software
www.ontospace.net
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|