|
Ravi,
thanks for stimulating thoughts on reality, perception,
imagination, thinking, and actions. Some comments into the
conversation.
1. We have to distinguish reality from the world, existence,
cosmos, universe, as everything everywhere everytime. There is an invariant
(ontological) reality, and the world of individuals, systems and aggregates,
exising as a number (series) of states of the world. (the String Vacuum
Project assumes: there may be as many as 10exp500 universes out there). I
believe the world is potentially infinite and eternal, meaning
a universe of infinite space (extent) and time
(duration).
2. We have to distinguish perception and imagination from
mind, thinking, knowing, or intellect. Sensation and perception deal with
sensory materials, imagination represents and compounds the sensory
materials as mental images (memory image, visual image, picture or
impression, imagination image, and auditory image). By contrary, the intellect
deals with abstractions, concepts, notions, or imageless thoughts and ideas
marked by universality. Many mistakenly think if some entity is not perceived or
imagined, it is unreal. The nature of intelligence is a never-ending nature's
mystery.
3. As Aristotle pointed out, "mind is separable, impassible,
unmixed....this alone is immaterial and eternal". It is quite possible that the
human brain is the material organ of perception, memory, and imagination ONLY.
The mechanims of intelligence/intellect/mind designed as more
intricate, being able to exist and operate apart from the piece of matter like
the brain in humans or animals.
What explains the intelligence portability and its capacity to
take on different forms as mental intelligence, social intelligence,
artifical intelligence, networked intelligence, city intelligence,
etc.
regards,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 3:07
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] if you
cannot measure..
Rich
Great!
After your description we can at least visualize or model how to map
senses to the parts of brain, next steps would require how information or
experiences are put together and may be some day how thoughts are converted to
action and sometimes just allowed to play as in replay of movies.
Thanks again.
Ravi
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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 surfaces.
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
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
com
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:
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
--
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
|