Thank you John. We sem to agree again. Except for one thing: (01)
JS: "But that ontology almost certainly does not include
much knowledge about mental operations." (02)
I am not sure if that knowledge in a kid is an ontology of any kind created
today on the current knowledge of humankind.
Suppose it is an ontology, the knowledge about mental operations asociated
with is should certainly not to be about opertaions, but the skills to
perform such assumed operations.
We always forget that knowledge is also procedural, and it is in that form
what we are all after. Especially after realtions, which have been hidden
all the way along collecting knowledge into encyclopedias, dictionaries or
ontologies.
Frank (03)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'[ontolog-forum] '"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems (04)
> Rich and Frank,
>
> RC> Contrast is by definition a comparison. Ordinarily,
>>it means comparison with neighboring pixels, against frequency
>> buckets...
>
> Those are computer implementation details. You don't have pixels
> or frequency buckets in the brain.
>
> Nobody knows exactly how the brain works, but many kinds of
> neural operations are senstive to changes, in either temporal
> or spatial directions. Such operations can be modeled quite
> well with Fourier transforms in spatial and/or temporal
> coordinates. There is some evidence that the equivalent of a temporal
> Fourier transform is performed even in the neural
> endings in the ear -- before the signals actually reach the
> brain. In terms of such transforms, contrast can be defined by
> the shape of the transformed signal.
>
> In any case, there is an enormous literature about what kinds
> of operations seem to be more primitive than others. But as
> any neuroscientist would say, there are still very many, many
> unknowns.
>
>>FK:> This is why now it was high time to see that no ontology
>> is correct without mental operations identified within the FO
>> language system, of which abstraction is one operation that
>> results in a property.
>
> I agree that mental operations should be considered in any kind of
> ontology
> that attempts to be comprehensive. But given that
> nobody knows exactly how the brain works, it impossible for
> anyone today to develop a truly comprehensive ontology.
>
> In any case, a child can learn language far better and faster
> than any computer system today, and there is now evidence
> that the child has much, if any built-in ontology. But by
> the time a child starts to use language, he or she already has
> a lot of low-level facts and models about how the world works,
> the people in it, his or her own body, and how all those things
> interact. But that ontology almost certainly does not include
> much knowledge about mental operations.
>
> Reasons like this are among the many, many reasons why I have
> maintained that any upper-level ontology should have very few
> axioms -- because the more axioms you have the greater the
> likelihood of error, contradiction, and confusion.
>
> For detailed reasoning, you do need axioms. But both people and
> computers do detailed reasoning only at the very low levels
> required for solving specific problems.
>
> Summary: We need an upper level that along the lines of a
> sparsely axiomatized and systematized WordNet. The detailed
> resoning is always done in the low-level microtheories, of
> which we need an enormous number.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|