For looking to read special articles, there is something here:
http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/faculty/just.shtml.
An example, how ontological ignorance leads to "pathological science",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science. Additionally to water
memory, cold fusion, N-rays, now enjoy the "thought identification
technology" with its confused fan in one packet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wacek Kusnierczyk" <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards (01)
> 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.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> vQ
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|