|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:21:47 +0000 (GMT)|
Len,Thank you for this challenging reply. here is what I can add to it:
What are you suggesting?
FK>IMHO a shift in paradigm is needed.
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.
I do not claim that I have created a new theory, but still it may sound to you a new theory if i say that as we create our own reflections in our mind of reality, we focus on what we identify as an object (meaning in Latin something obstructing your view), we may compare it with objects already known to us and link it up to our current knowledge. (I am not going to give you al the details of the process, short of space and time), then we do various other operations, abstraction is being one of them as a resultofwhich we get a list f properties of that object in question. (rememebr instesionality, extensionality, etc.) having done that you may takean other view orposition of the object,which means that you start anew relation and perfrom your next action, which can be formalisation for instance.
The main point is that an object as a concept is your creation, and is a result of specification wroking backwards from the list of properties to identify an object.
>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.
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.
The reason is siemple, we have a differet set of experience and knowlede not to mention the drastic difference of speaking different native tongues. But weshould always try to harmonize, and one way of doing it is to shift your paradign and check out how you got notion A and howI got to notion A. It is the route, the difference of menat operations that makes us tick. But there is no coherent model or theory of how we get to our concepts, not even at the core level where we start off from nothing, and gradually enlarge our experience classified in three basic categoris - but not static, not as a picture, but as a process or procedure of the mental operatons
properlyidentiified and sorted in sequence or cycles. That is waht I wouldlike to share with in a project but none is so far serioulsy interested, which does not bother me, you are loosing out on that.
>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.
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. Yes mate.
>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.
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. I need to contradict you. As soon as you start thinking in terms of creating your concepts in a set manner, data, operations data, you will have Rubki's cube problem multilied starting off from upper levle and going down to epcifics of everyday objects in yout onlotlogy tree.
>All what matters in thinking is the result...< the rest is incoherent>
Well, I should not qualify anybody as talking in an incoherent way.
I don't get it.
That is better.
Ask me another question, erhaps.
Cheers and no hard feelings.
"Starting all over"
+44 77 70654068 (Vodafone)
www.firkasz.com and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?FerencKovacs
----- Original Message ----
From: Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:02:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures, Len Yabloko|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures, Len Yabloko|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures, Len Yabloko|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures, Len Yabloko|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|