Re: [ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure..

[ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ferenc

 

Wonderful summary of visualization and thought relationship. I Appreciate it. Yes i did see the language transformations but did not know those languages.

 

In 1960's I used to correspond with Yale Aviator and Prof of Philosophy Norwood Hansen on "Picture Theory of Theory Meaning" Unfortunately he passed away.

Now that I am more aware of our directions toward developing ontology and expressing the results in visual, graphs and logic or other forms such as UML, I agree with you that it is difficult to describe thought and reality or facts, as you mentioned, as per Wittgenstein.

 

In some Eastern philosophies and thought the reality that is visible (or even conceivable) is ever changing and therefore non-static and often due to that nature, deceptive.

 

These uncertainties are appearing more and more in Ucertainties, Short Lifetimes of Particles, Univese of possibilities, Dark-matter and Dark-energy currently unrealizable cause but measurable effects etc etc. at physics levels.

 

But reality is perceived by physical senses when they connect with mind or when activated by mind such as paying Attention.

 

Models or understanding is very often helped by visualization, I can today learn faster by TV Audio-visual Learning rather than by reading texts, especially in less familiar languages.

 

Text, Graphs, images and even time based variants such as workflows and movies only bring the understanding to more common and visualizable platforms and it is amazing that many engineering and science based accomplishments inherently depend on this common understanding by us all. Also these at Classical levels are repeatable by any "informed or trained" human being.

 

Yet - Can we assume that we all perceive the reality as identical models?

What difference does the learning history (environment, culture, Language and expressions) play in our understanding, how uncommon are the underlying mental models (or understanding).

 

As long as we communicate well for the intended purpose and have repeatable experiences, we are fine and hopefully ontology ought to capture those essentially common relationships among things.

 

Now to summarize: how best can we describe sense association for each important sense organ and its connection with mind such as dance (visual) and association with music (hearing) to describe primitive level description, let alone the flow and nuances.

 

Similarly how many types of relationships among objects, sensory and visual experiences are we to capture for describing a phenomenon that we are trying to understand? For Dance the Relativistic corrections are negligible but for electron impact on TV screen they may not be!

 

At the outset math or E=Mc*2 is the culmination of that deeper understanding of physical phenomenon that we are finally expressing as equation.

 

Welcome your thoughts and practical approaches in Ontology that might capture these things and relationships ....and will write more in future.

 

Regards.

Thanks.

Ravi

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:29 PM, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ravi wrote:
What were you trying for us to learn from the bio links, I went there but did you have a particular area of their success to show the readers?
That link shows you a machine translation of that web page into several languages, check out how silly such product can get. If someone believes that it makes sense or use, he has no idea of what QA and reality means.
Ravi wrote:

So what are the alternatives to Dewey or Ranganathan's classifications in terms of semantic understanding?

Thanks.

Before we had ontologies, we already had inventories of objects complete with properties and relations included in descriptions and definitions that were not harmonized. Then we had library classification systems and various numeric identifiers combined with verbal identifiers that were not harmonized either. Instead, you had a limited understanding of relations based on spatial features and logic operators. More importantly, linguistic knowledge and lexical knowledge were kept apart as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Reality however is best understood through visualization which is poorly represented by verbal identifiers. Mind you, that of all our senses it is the visual output that is practically non-existing as a symmetric response to sensory input. Therefore we usually look for ways to represent everything visually and find the ways to turn verbal components into some form of "tesselation" so that you can build images from verbal segments.

Trying to quote from my notes, here is what Wittgenstein says about the importance of images or pictures.

2.1 We create images for ourselves on facts

2.12 An image is a model of reality.

2.13 Objects are the elements of an image

2.14.1 An image is a fact

2.182 Every image is logical as well

3.The logical image of the facts is a thought

4.01 A statement is an image of reality ...

4.021 A statement is an image of reality. If I understand the statement, then I must be familiar with the condition described by the statement. And I understand the statement without explanation.

4.022 A statement reveals its sense

4.06 A statement may only be true or false by checking that if it is an image of reality or not.

And I can recall that another author who solved the issue of visualizing music wrote in his book:

Knowledge is ordered access to information Definition 63 on page 440

Principle 17 Visual navigation must be built on ordering

Visual navigation on general databases is difficult task for three reasons

The data structure is not a priori in a geometric shape.

The geometric shape, if it occurs, is not a priori adapted to human 3D vision

An object may be composed of other objects which in turn are composed and so on in a recursive way. Visualisation then should take care of a recursive architecture

All that lead me to believe that the alphabetical sort of words are an incorrect structure form knowledge representations, foundation level or otherwise. The practical use of the current organization of KRs that I find important is impossible from WordNet, because that does not carry the information that results from a different kind of semantic analysis, including mental operations, etc.

Ferenc.

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

-- 
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________
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)