Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic Systems

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary Berg-Cross wrote:

 

<snip>

 

GBC> I agree in principle that there may be other types of experience that provide a representational basis for a childs's understanding.  I wouldn't be dogmatic that actions and perceptions are the only basis for meaning that children use. <snip/> It's really an empirical question and one point I was trying to make is that there is some research that tries to address these issues if not from the science of ontology position from other disciplines. 

 

But it is at least worth considering some minimalist hypothesis to test about the development sequence out of a kernel of concept. I do think that part of what is going on for children involves their belief-desire-intention abilities and that the emotions you mention are important parts of the cognitive developmental process.  Jordan Zlatev, a linguist at Lund University in  Sweden discussed such a theory in " A hierarchy of meaning systems based on value"

 

You mentioned "identity based on distinguishable sounds or faces,".  Infants are predisposed to attend to human face like feature assemblies and come to distinguish caretakers in the first year.  Perhaps we want to discuss some idea of "identity" as part of a procedure to identify things and actions, but this is probably not the richer notion of identity we have later and that is one of the arguments that one has about child vs. adult cognition.  Just what is the young child's first conceptual notions of such things. 

 

 

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx      http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770

 

Yes, similar reasoning (more layman, less professional) was what led me to the conclusion that identification has to happen BEFORE conjunction because the learner has to know her As from her Bs.  At the very first, it seems to me that a discriminant which is able to sort the As from the Not As – the window functions on Things which are A.  So in that limited sense of negation – either it’s A or its NOT A – has to come first IMHO just based on plausible sequence of development. 

 

Other views greatly appreciated. 

 

-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)