|From:||ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:21:35 -0500|
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.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:29 PM, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure.., FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure.., Rich Cooper|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure.., FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure.., Rich Cooper|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|