|
Ravi wrote:
"Then there is this question, you somewhat
address it, as to how mind and brain interact - similar to we need humans
(intelligent life?) to communicate among ourselves and even to approach the
question of intelligence even though we are likely to discover more intelligent
life forms in this vast universe (that we both as astrophysicists know and most
others also agree)."
Ravi,
This is a deep question, i wish to know
the answer as well.
What is clear, the new ontology/semantics
of intelligence is here requested. The old one just assumed that the core
of all intelligent activity is the human mind, that intelligence is its
ever-fixed, inherent property representing and mastering the world by a set
of standard mental techniques and cognitive operations: learning, knowing,
understanding, reasoning, thinking, and language.
A broader and deeper conception is needed
to explain how intelligence could be individual and collective and artificial at
the same time, how intelligence is distributed among people, cultural tools, and
rational behavior and best practices, how it is embodied in the social networks
and in the interrelationships with techno-social artifacts and human
surroundings. Call it real intelligence or networked
intelligence.
Note the harware of the human brain with
its memory space has been unchanged for 40,000 years, even devolving because of
new mental diseases; while the technological infrastructure as its external
representations is unlimitedly expanding to the Internet/Web as the
largest external symbolic storage and processing network. Even more, to the
Future Internet of Things, Knowledge and Intelligence and emerging
intelligent nations. And when we talk of a intelligent nation we
understand that the final goal is not just economic growth and the quality of
life for all people but an enlargement of human intelligence through artifacts
and networks, computing and social, to the higher intellectual systems
level, a nationwide innovative knowledge intelligent community.
kind regards,
azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:20
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] if you
cannot measure..
Azamat
Great comment:
- Your first sentence echoes what is in ancient Vedas (~5000 Years
ago) ditto "We have to distinguish reality from the world, existence,
cosmos, universe, as everything everywhere everytime."
- What Rich Cooper showed us was process / mechanism that maps
sensory inputs to different parts of brain.
- Then there is this question, you somewhat address it, as to how mind and
brain interact - similar to we need humans (intelligent life?) to
communicate among ourselves and even to approach the question of
intelligence even though we are likely to discover more intelligent life
forms in this vast universe (that we both as astrophysicists know and most
others also agree), let us see what we can say:
- there is strong (?) connection for _expression_ of intelligence
-intellect-mind- senses-body-including endocrine inputs to neural
processes.
- but we do not fully understand purpose or reason for "thought" which
makes us understand and realize this universe through transformation of
intelligence to undertanding of physical universe.
- there is a close word meaning asociated with mind and intellect
but called "manas" in Sanskrit which loosely implies the freely
wandering consciousness in us that is the center of "thought" and there
are numerous references to that process and wanting it to be
peaceful so that no undesirable "thoughts" (with the help of intellect to
discriminate between pleasant and good) dwell in our mind (manas).
- You also imply collective wisdom - yes it is a powerful thought and
the basis for democracy as well as human compassionate response for
catastrophic events such as Tsunamis, etc.
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740
Mobile
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev
<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
|