John, (01)
I think you may underestimating some of the post-language changes. (02)
So, as you probably know, studies in pre-literate Mesopotamian mathematics
show that these cultures did not have a notion of number. In other words,
they did not have a clear notion of 1, 2 or 3.
One can track when the idea was introduced. In the early writing, three
sheep were signed by three symbols for a sheep. Subsequently there was one
symbol for 3 and one for sheep. (03)
The story is complicated by the use of different numerals for (what we now
regard as) numbers depending upon what was being counted. We have the
remnants of this is the different bases we use for counting different things
(e.g. hours, minutes). Japanese still has residual different numerals. (04)
This seems pretty fundamental - but I am not sure how one measures
fundamentality. (05)
> Even without writing, the oral bards preserved the details of the Trojan
war for
> about 500 years (from the bronze age in the 13th century BC to the iron
age in
> the 8th).
Have you read Alfred Lord on this? He notes interesting differences. (06)
My view is that the human mind is to some extent plastic and it can learn
things like numbers that have a big effect on its functionality. There is an
analogy with a computer, where one could argue that its hardware is
fundamental (in some sense) but it also makes a big difference what software
is loaded.
My only reason for pursuing this is that if these kinds of claims are
correct then the introduction of computing should correlate with some
conceptual changes - fundamental or otherwise - and maybe some of this
ontology stuff has a part to play in it. (07)
Regards,
Chris (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 25 March 2010 13:59
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Inventor of the Web Gets Backing to Build Web
of
> Data
>
> Chris, Ali, and Pavithra,
>
> CP> There is an 'orality and literacy' community that studies how
> > information technology and changes in the way people *think* are >
linked -
> and there is lots of evidence that there are changes.
> > Whether these amount to a change in human nature is probably >
debatable.
>
> I certainly agree. Every innovation of any kind changes, extends, and
refines the
> meanings of an enormous number of words. Major innovations create even
> more changes: urban societies, writing, the printing press, universal
education,
> and modern technology such as cars, telephones, airplanes, television, and
> computers.
>
> AH> ... each heralded a completely new way of communicating with one
> > another and also a very fundamental shift in how people thought.
>
> Note: "shift in how people thought" is different from the fundamental
processes
> of thinking.
>
> AH> The development of linear though (and eventually logic) seems
> > closely coupled with writing (in lines), and the ensuing metaphors >
such as
> "developing lines of thought."
>
> I agree. The influence of formal logic is comparable to the "lines of
thought"
> that became possible with the shift from Roman numerals to Arabic
numerals.
> (But even today, many people don't know enough math to experience that
> difference.)
>
> AH> Such a shift is accented when we consider that in oral
> > traditions, an idea is ephemeral in space-time, and approaches > one's
senses
> from all directions, whereas written text is > highly visual, linear,
static etc....
>
> The single most important innovation that makes it possible to overcome
the
> ephemeral nature of thought is language itself.
> Even without writing, the oral bards preserved the details of the Trojan
war for
> about 500 years (from the bronze age in the 13th century BC to the iron
age in
> the 8th).
>
> AH> All of these technologies most assuredly made fundamental
> > changes to how people think, talk and behave. I'm not going to > touch
> "human nature."
>
> But those changes are comparable to the differences from one person to the
> next in any society. People raised on farms experience a "culture shock"
when
> they go to the big city. Parents often ask their children to program the
VCR or
> log on to a computer.
>
> My original statement addressed *the ways* that people think, talk, and
behave
> -- not the subject matter about which they think or talk. And I
definitely meant
> human nature.
>
> We are all born into a society where none of the above technologies have
any
> influence until the second year of life at the earliest.
> Even then, they are of minor influence on early childhood compared to the
> enormous differences crated by variations in the methods of parenting.
Yet the
> foundations for semantics and ways of thinking are well established by age
> three.
>
> I agree that culture and methods of education have a major influence on
> extending and refining those early influences. But by age 5, the
foundation has
> been thoroughly established. (And by the way, recent studies on the
exposure of
> infants to television indicate that it has a *negative* influence on their
> development of language skills.)
>
> CP> A good introduction to these topics is these two books:
> >
> > Orality and Literacy (New Accents) Walter J. Ong >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415281296
> >
> > The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications > of
Writing
> and Reading > David R. Olson >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521575583
>
> Those are good references, and I agree that those issues have a major
impact
> on the further development of cognition. But that impact is comparable to
the
> education after age 6. It extends and refines the cognitive options, it
disciplines
> the thinking processes, and it enlarges the vocabulary immensely. But it
doesn't
> change the fundamentals on which semantics is based.
>
> Language, by the way, is the single most important contribution to
developing
> the cognitive processes. The chimps and bonobos that have learned some
form
> of language become very much more "human like". See, for example,
>
> _The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, And Intelligence Evolved From Our
> Primate Ancestors To Modern Humans_. by Greenspan and Shanker,
> http://www.amazon.com/First-Idea-Language-Intelligence-
> Ancestors/dp/0738206806
>
> Studies like this show that language is overwhelmingly more important than
the
> later innovations imposed on top of language, such as writing, oral
composition,
> and even computer games.
>
> AH> That said, aside from the contentious paragraph, I too am in
> > broad agreement with the rest of your message.
>
> Thanks.
>
> PK> Google was considering including semantic concepts couple of months
> > ago...
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean when you say it is not SW! Semantic web >
> does not mean those tools that are build using RDF and OWL etc.. only!
>
> By the term 'Semantic Web' I meant the developments based on top of Tim
B-L's
> layer-cake diagram. That shows Unicode, URIs, and XML as the foundation
on
> which RDF is built. Then OWL and other logics are forced into a
triple-style
> notation similar to RDF.
>
> That paradigm constrained semantics by syntax. I have no quarrel about
using
> RDF and OWL as one notation among many. But the idea of focusing on
syntax
> instead of semantics was the fatal flaw.
>
> I agree that Google and many other systems on the WWW use semantics, but
> they don't abide by the layer-cake paradigm. I strongly support that
approach.
> But technically, it means that they are going outside (or beyond) the
paradigm of
> the layer cake.
>
> I would be delighted if Sir Tim, the "Web Science Institute", and the W3C
would
> abandon the layer cake while keeping the name Semantic Web. (They don't
have
> to make a public announcement that they're abandoning it -- they can just
> ignore it.) That would be an important step toward a truly semantic
Semantic
> Web.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|