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.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
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.
Regards
Frank
----- 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