[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Wacek Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:08:05 +0100
Message-id: <497A31B5.6040103@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Azamat wrote:
> Ian,
> The referential model of meaning had its use when semantics was in the stage 
> of conception. Today, the extensional models are largely irrelevant to the 
> challenges of the complex world.
> There is a hot topic in neuroscience called "mind reading" with fMRI, aiming 
> to use neuroimaging techniques to read the brain activation patterns by 
> detecting blood flow in the brain areas. Recently, it was widely published 
> that the technique of neural information processing affords reading your 
> thoughts and intentions by means of scanners: 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713_page2.shtml.
> Such a poor alchemy comes from two main reasons: bad ontology and defective 
> semantics.
>       (01)

have you read any articles published by Just or colleagues in
peer-reviewed scientific journals before puffing up your
pseudoontological bubbles?  if you're making such strong judgements
based on superficial news in cbs, it's far from a scientific approach.    (02)

vQ    (03)

> Good ontology posits that there are at least three worlds: the physical 
> world of material entities (as living organisms with brain processes); the 
> mental world of experiences as thought processes; the meaningful world of 
> the thought contents (institutions, languages, works of arts, social norms, 
> laws, etc.). Semantically, we have two related but distinct realms here, the 
> universe of extension and denotation and reference (res extensa) and the 
> universe of intension and connotation. Neglecting or mixing the worlds, as 
> brain processes with cognitive operations as thought experience (subjective 
> meaning, res cogitans), and the thought processes with the thought's 
> contents (objective meanings), can lead you to all sorts of pseudoscience 
> and fictitious creations, as Just's "thought identification technology", 
> just exciting for national security agencies and laymen.
>       (04)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

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