[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Inventor of the Web Gets Backing to Build Webof Data

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:31:38 -0700
Message-id: <20100404183145.ED2CC138D20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Ali,


Your gardening photos look like you are a lover of natural beauty, so I can see why your interest in subjective experience is so strong.  


You are right; McLuhan, and the flood of new marketing methods that followed his teachings, demonstrated how little the things we buy are actually purchased for purely logical and utilitarian reasons.  It’s those things we have been exposed to in our subjective experience, in our local environment, with our directly experienced emotionally charged situations and events, which make us learn to think, to place emotional value, and otherwise to direct our behaviors are higher conceptual levels than thought does. 


That is most especially noticeable in manifestations of pain.  My wife is constantly in pain due to a nervous and muscular condition, but she is able to escape much of this great pain when she is focused on a task that interests her emotionally.  For example, when our two year old granddaughter comes over, my wife spends a lot of time caring for her and teaching her, and helping her explore my wife’s tiny garden, which is very well taken care of.  When she is deep into caring and teaching and gardening, the pain is much diminished.  Its when she his out of the garden, without the granddaughter, trying to sleep without distracting influences that the pain is most difficult for her to control.  


The pure logic of ontology is, in my opinion, not sufficient.  Although I think your carbon sequestration approach is politically correct, I don’t think your motivation comes from Al Gore, but from your love of gardening.  Thinking back on the things that have been really, really important to me in life, not one is important because of logic and math.  All are important because the emotional learning I have gathered, both conscious and unconscious, establish 100% of any significant meaning, while logic just glues together the parts that are tangled so I can recognize them more clearly.  





Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali Hashemi
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 5:17 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Inventor of the Web Gets Backing to Build Webof Data


Dear John and Chris,

Sorry for the delay, I've been traveling the past while...

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Chris Partridge <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I think you may underestimating some of the post-language changes.

I'd like to reinforce Chris' point - I don't think there's anything to be gained in minimizing or mitigating the effects of "cultural" or technological interaction on how we come to understand the world. While it is undeniable that by virtue of being human and how are brains are structured, we are all predisposed to process the world in broadly/roughly the same way, the impact of environment plays a very significant role in our "fundamental" processes.

Here are three examples:


1) Consider the basic inference rule - Modus Ponens:

If P then Q
Therefore Q

Contrast the communication / sharing of this idea via spoken word vs. written text. When written, Modus Ponens is much more intuitive and reasonable. The visual component of Modus Ponens lends that statement the semantic reasonableness / agree-ability which makes it a natural inference rule. You might similarly use a diagram to communicate it, instead of written language, however the point is that the *intuition* of this type of semantics is closely coupled to the media in which it is presented. The auditory route is much more circuitous and less obvious, and it is certainly not nearly as intuitive. The invention of writing changed our sense ratios, from one focused on hearing, to one focused on visualizing, which very probably led to the adoption of this inference rule. Is this changing human nature? It certainly changed how we think :D.

Again, this isn't to say that an oral culture wouldn't discover or accept Modus Ponens, just that it arises much more naturally in a visual culture.


2) A recent study done by the Rotman School of Management ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/uotr-rpf032510.phphttp://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/fastfood.pdf ) indicates that what we eat affects our disposition. Now it doesn't alter human nature, but if human nature consists of a range of predisposed possible reactions to situations, then different environments (and technologies, and foods) will alter how and the ratios in which that nature is expressed.

Specifically, the study indicates that eating fatty / fast food type meals biases people's disposition to be more impatient. And particularly, if certain types of reasoning are associated with impatience (i.e. less deliberation, more rash, quick, short judgments), then I hope you agree that there is a marked change in our manifested fundamental process of thinking.

To be clear, an analogy I prefer here is to compare our cognitive faculties to the weather. While there may be certain basic rules that govern how weather across the earth generally operates, conditions in the arctic are drastically different than those near the equator. To wit, while our "fundamental processes" afford us a range of cognitive / perceptual processes, our local environments and interactions bias and tease out only parts of this potential range.


3) Which brings me to the last example. Consider communities where the predominant form of transport is:

a) driving
b) biking
c) walking

Each person in these communities will have a fundamentally different conception of space, location, time etc. And the reason for this, while they may all share roughly the same "fundamental processes" is that they are engaging these processes, manifesting them, in drastically different ways. Each time someone opts to bike instead of drive, they use a different set of faculties with which to interact with the world, which in turn affects longer, more subtle perceptions. Similar to the food study above, repeated engagement of certain cognitive faculties when interacting with the world will affect how / which components of cognition one will choose to process other aspects of the world.


Going back to the first example, people in a society where thought is often visualized will be more likely to intuit / discover / propose Modus Ponens than another society. This isn't to say that it is impossible. Only to point out that the effects of social and technological habituation / interaction are significantly more important than what seemed to be implied in your recent posts.

For further reading, I would highly recommend:

* John Dewey - Experience and Nature - 1925 ( http://www.amazon.com/Experience-Nature-John-Dewey/dp/0486204715 )

* Marshall McLuhan - Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man - 1964 - (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Media-Extensions-Marshall-McLuhan/dp/0262631598/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270382776&sr=1-1 ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media:_The_Extensions_of_Man), from the wiki:

McLuhan says that the conventional pronouncements fail in studying media because they pay attention to and focus on the content, which blinds them to see its actual character, the psychic and social effects. Significantly, the electric light is usually not even regarded as a media because it has no content. Instead, McLuhan observes that any medium "amplifies or accelerates existing processes", introduces a "change of scale or pace or shape or pattern into human association, affairs, and action", resulting in "psychic, and social consequences";[2][3] this is the real "meaning or message" brought by a medium, a social and psychic message, and it depends solely on the medium itself, regardless of the 'content' emitted by it.[2] This is basically the meaning of "the medium is the message".

* Neil Postman - Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business - 1985 - (http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270382803&sr=1-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death ) - from the wiki:

The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus Rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for the aforesaid reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasises the quality of information in favour of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.


Drawing on the ideas of media scholar Marshall McLuhan — altering McLuhan's aphorism "the medium is the message", to "the medium is the metaphor" — he describes how oral, literate, and televisual cultures radically differ in the processing and prioritision of information; he argues that each medium is appropriate for a different kind of knowledge. The faculties requisite for rational inquiry are simply weakened by televised viewing. Accordingly, reading, a prime example cited by Postman, exacts intense intellectual involvement, at once interactive and dialectical; whereas television only requires passive involvement. Moreover, as television is programmed according to ratings, its content is determined by commercial feasibility, not critical acumen. Television in its present state, he says, does not satisfy the conditions for honest intellectual involvement and rational argument.



Founding Director, www.reseed.ca

(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>