[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:34:11 -0700
Message-id: <20090711183414.62CBC138D02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Frank,


Actually, I think we have evolved along stored energy gradients.  For example the energy from the sun nurtures plants that transform minerals into a coherent, crystalline toolkit of proteins that we also consume.  So solar energy nourishes us all.  We may mistake it for a slice of time at a voxel of space at which it occurs, but stored and kinetic energy is the direct driver, not time and space.  Time and space are simply orthogonal measures of the outlines around those gradients. 




Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


FK> Rich,


The issue is not to define "what", but "how". Existence is experienced and everything we experience in spacetime  we experience its absence as well,

because everything is i constant motion and change, and we notice changes at

our scale. As soon as we have started to use a language our former and

current iconostic experience got labelled with a word, which is a form to

help us make a refernce to a chunk of reality. The content is still

experience and as such it is different with people as long as they are not

taking up the very the same posiitn in space and time, which is not

possible, of course

Now having said that with regard to existence and non existence we must also

be aware of motion, start and stop (end) whether we agree on FO or not. For

us it is difficult or impossible to focus on two items in sight, therefore

we must freeze the input picture and by doing so we stop time. Space in  our

mind is not sensed anyway, so it is easy to be fooled that our mind works in

a temporal and spatial vacuum. It does not. So whatever our mind creates

through MENTAL OPERATIONS, it is in principle marked by space and time

identifiers, the only real uniqueq identifiers in this world. So our mind

produces concepts, whch have form and content, while the universe creates

objects, which also have form and content. We produce new objects from

existing objects by assembling, the universe creates objects from nothing -

the form and name of something we do not know.

When we have concepts to identify the chunks of reality, we have verbal

forms to be used to maike a picture, which is the clue to undersatnding or

making sense. But verbal forms are not suitable for assembly, and content

must be aligned with the use of forms between the speakers of any langauge.

Now since forms have content, but it is the form or pattern that shows the

limits and the boundaries of content, the content of verbal forms must

provide for such identification of form. But unfortunatelly, the concept of

meaning, context and the commuication model of a bargaining situatio where

we should arive at an agreement as to th sense of any form, or concept s not

dealt properly among ontologists. The most serious problem is that you want

a network, a lattice of frozen dots to represent an ever moving rality,

where time is the most important concept despite the fact that yiou may

ignore it sometimes just as any other concepts.

So not seeig how time may be used in FO properly and putting event in the

cebtre with axioms may serve well to design robots, but a dumb robot only.








----- Original Message -----

From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9:11 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems



> What I am steering this thread toward (please play along) is the

> description

> of how logical function can have evolved.  We start with a recognition of

> existence - so far so good.  But what is it that we are actually

> recognizing

> to exist?  If we recognize it AGAIN, does that mean we have discovered

> time,

> or at least ordering, but how do we know that this IT is the same as the

> IT

> we saw the last time?  That drives toward a required ability to

> discriminate

> among things, i.e. a predicate.


> I would like to see a full philosophical structuring of this very basic

> thing we call logic.


> -Rich



> Sincerely,

> Rich Cooper

> EnglishLogicKernel.com

> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


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    (01)

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