[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:02:19 +0000
Message-id: <W65196243065021217966539@webmail41>
Frank,     (01)

What are you suggesting?    (02)

FK>IMHO a shift in paradigm is needed.    (03)

I think most will agree to that statement, but making it does not contribute to 
anything. I have already pointed out on this forum that paradigm shifts are  
results of new theories applied to old problems - not a solution in itself.    (04)

>Of the three basic categories, objects, propertiesand relations, objects and 
>properties are clearly mainly derived from visual input, the perfection of 
>which is subject to exposure. All what you get is data, and what you tend to 
>forget about is that we need instructions or operations on such data. Those 
>data are processed and tagged by verbal mnemonics and may be retrieved later 
>as if of being a holograph nature to allow others to reconstruct the original 
>visual stimuli.    (05)

If that is so, then why can't I reconstruct what was on your mind when you were 
 writing this message. I have no clue what you are trying to say.    (06)

>Now relations are operations if you follow the computer paradigm, a very 
>useful analogy. by leaving the visual products, you leave the static or 
>stationary representations and get closer to reality, where everything is in 
>motion. Instead of using the traditional relations based on space and time, 
>and the falsity of casuality, you could have operations of the mind that are 
>reflected and articulated in informal logic. Formal logic and syllogism are a 
>bore, apart from being very useful for certain purposes, but is a very narrow 
>slice of reality to be modelled by ontologies.    (07)

Besides piling 2500 years of thought under a label "bore", do you know of a 
better way to model reality. I think you have closer surface to stick that 
label.     (08)

>Things are a lot simlpler than you think. As far as data structures are 
>concerned, you either have a list or an array. In grammar, you either have a 
>label (heading and title) or a message. Most names of things are already 
>collected into various nomenclatures (classifications) that are the tresults 
>of some mental operations I have already given examples of.    (09)

Really? In my world there are at least four dimensions, and possibly many more. 
But if you only observe one dimension then things are simple indeed for you.    (010)

>All what matters in thinking is the result...< the rest is incoherent>     (011)

I don't get it.    (012)

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    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>