[ontolog-forum] multidimensional surfaces

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

Thanks for that round on the subject. I agree that

"All of these have visual interpretations more useful than linguistic interpretations for immediate communications purposes."

Some remarks.

In my view we have a synchronization process at hand as well - not just individually, at sensory level, but between us and the environment. I have already noted that will and emotion are synchronized through motivation, music, etc. and it is the synchronization of thoughts (affected by those other factors) where the conversion of verbal representations come into play. As anticipatory creatures we look for meaning, we do a search all the time, which, if fruitful, ends in a hit or a match.As kids we learn to pari things, find the odd man out, etc.by doing thousands of exercises of that sort and we are unaware of the underlying mental processes. We do not seem to be able to access those sensory processing modules by will, but can focus on the content of our "working or short-term memory", the length or depth of which is a key issue.

I believe that in a linguistic interpretation of verbal signs you also access your repertory of experiences of reality and decide on the size of verbal input that represents a complete unit for processing, becasue for anything to make sense it must be complete, it must be a whole, an integer, if you like. A word is not a complete unit, especially when it is a verb. And a verb to me is the sign of relation.  

 

All relations are in fact inclusive of space and there are no relations exclusive of space. If something is defined as being outside space and time, then it cannot be described in terms of finite objects existing in space and time. And if something in space has no extension (finite dimensions) then it cannot be located, therefore it is not included in space and time either. But the relations used in our definitons are usually originated in our spacetime concepts. Part-whole, Class-member, Upper and Lower for example can all visualized in a two-dimensional space, because they are finite and a part of a closed system.

 

On the other hand any attempt to measure infinity (which is supposed to be reality) with finite units of measurements results in a fiasco, because you cannot divide infinity (totality, wholeness, one) into separate finite chunks. (It appears as if wholeness can not be separated to result in other wholenesses, without a remainder or a fraction.) There is always an imponderable quantity or remainder that we miss in trying to identify, or to close the boundaries between any two separate elements in space and time. Thus the boundary is also a component to count with whether we see it or not, like in case of the force acting on the surfaces between two adjacent bodies or objects, between a cell and the core, etc. causing tension on the surface.

We have direct experience of space from before birth, the experience of time comes later in mental development. Time does not exist without movement, so we create our concept of time in relation to movement in space that we have direct evidence of, whether it is our own movement or that of the celestial bodies, for instance. Now movement is an action as we have seen and it is also a relation usually between a fixed point of space (point of reference, usually that of the observer) and another point of space where an objects moves to. This leads to the creation/conception of a couple of other concepts such as path and speed and mass and energy. But all those concepts come later in the development of knowledge about the world and ourselves. (interestingly enough, the forces of Nature come in families of three, just as many ancient signs and symbols have just three or four elements.) Examples: yin yang and the two triangles turned into hexagon, etc. which suggest to me that they are the visualization of intuitive knowledge on our mental operations that we see for example as attributes of algebraic operations. So in a yin yang symbol you may find commutation, association, inversion, reflection, symmetry and even recursion. But I could also show examples from a human language that a single word form may not just be a verb, a noun and an adjective, but an object, a relation and a property at the same time - by looking at it from different angles.

 

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    (01)