Anyone who has watched the recent health
care debate in the American Congress, White House and media will take issue with
your central thesis – that a group of people has a higher IQ than a single
individual. Instead, a group has an IQ that is lower than any one person in
the group, IMHO. The real value of groups is that they have a large amount of
facts and beliefs at their mutual communicative disposal. That doesn’t make
them smarter. It only makes their heads bigger.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009
11:08 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] if
you cannot measure..
"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)."
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.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December
29, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure..
- 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:
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.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December
29, 2009 3:07 AM
Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] if you cannot measure..
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.
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|