Ferenc and Ravi,
Hopefully I am not intruding on this topic
by suggesting that multidimensional surfaces are good ways to present
mereological knowledge in visual forms. And there is ample biological reason
to think that we do use multidimensional mappings in our thought processes.
The cortex is two dimensional, and the
consistency of the body-to-brain mapping’s shape preservation (e.g., the
homunculus on the sensorimotor cortex) indicates that other brain areas may well
be dimensional projections of bodily experiences we don’t yet understand
or know how to measure.
The auditory cortex is snail shell shaped,
and likewise maps out frequency, intensity and time lapse in dimensional
The retina and the visual cortex clearly
map experience in more and more refined ways, but spread the interpretation
over a brain surface.
Electrophoresis is doing in biology what
Fourier analysis did for electronics. The ways to map out surfaces onto multidimensional
classes is what provides speech understanding cues.
All of these have visual interpretations more
useful than linguistic interpretations for immediate communications purposes.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ravi sharma
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] if
you cannot measure..
Wonderful summary of visualization and thought relationship. I
Appreciate it. Yes i did see the language transformations but did not know
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
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
Yet - Can we assume that we all perceive the reality as identical
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
Welcome your thoughts and practical approaches in Ontology that might
capture these things and relationships ....and will write more in
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:29 PM, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
So what are the alternatives to Dewey or
Ranganathan's classifications in terms of semantic understanding?
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
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.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile