Rich,
I would like to propose a different set of primitives; consider
objects and situations as the ONLY primitives.
FK: How are they defined to start with?
As I look at it the issue is similar to what you have with
spacetime. In the beginning we perceive objects in space, no names, no details,
etc. and we also notce movement (basicaly change). We learn what
time is later, as time and force are not visible as concepts. Those three
components are a PRODUCT. Check out Phyiscs
What we notice is change (movement geared to our level of
resolution, speed of perception and length of retention in short-term memory
where the sensations of movement leave their marks, just as in the accelerator
of atomic particles in Switzerland)
So the concept of spaetime is generated by perceiving movement (a
property of an object) AND/OR perceiving movement as an object (and its
property an object) in a relation betwen us (observer, object called subject)
and the environment (object) by actively participating in the world wich you
call a situation and which I call an object too - usually divided as your body
(divided as body and soul, etc) in the environment (object to be defined as
spacetime). And that relation is an Operation, which always have a result, a
product, a consequence, etc.
(BTW: whoever informs you will transform you - Bela Hamvas)
You cannot define spacetime without the concept of motion and the
object moving
V=s/t V=velocity, s=path
in space and t=time
Obviously the perception
of is specifi of the observer. Light speed (c) in vacuum 299,792,458 m/s. Time in this equation T=vs shows that
the path an object covrs ion space is the same as time passing, and if they are
even (1) the time stops for that object. Similarly if the speed of movement in
change S patht=vt is the
same as time, then time is the same as space (path) T =Vs Now if you
introduce the concept of Object, then since D exists both in time and space,
then O/T=O/S or existence (property)=O=ST
Both objects and situations can be further subdivided
into various axes of comparison. Some have mass, some have energy, some
have locality, some have whatever other properties you prefer to postulate.
FK I believe you
So it is the enumeration of properties that your new infant begins
to learn and apply to separate those primitive objects and situations into
“a kind of” partitions. Later, seeing a new object or situation X
which is somehow reminiscent to the infant of a previously encountered object
or situation Y, the infant has the eureka moment of distinguishing X “is a”
Y.
FK We differ here, I am going to continue in a separate mail, not
to cover too many things in one.
Thanky you very much in the mean time I remain
yours sincerely :-)
Ferenc
You can further describe other iterative and recursive rational
processes by which the primitive objects and situations are observed,
classified, acted on experimentally, and by which theories can be formed in the
infant’s emerging consciousness and memories.
The crucial idea is to NOT start with classes, sets, or other
constructions, which are not truly primitive. The infant perceives
objects, and situations (relationships among collections of objects and
situations) differently as she learns more and more about these mysterious
realities.
HTH,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
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 FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010
1:57 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
semantic analysis was do not trust quantifiers
You refer to my quote from Wikipedia, of which I highlighted the
following
Main points: … add semantic information…associating
variable and function references with their definitions…parsing … a
complete parse tree, meaning that this phase logically follows the parsing phase,
While I agree with you on the points raised, it appears to me that
the only useful information to find as far as the semantics (function) of the
code is the source code, as opposed to all sorts of commentaries made in the
history of the product life cycle.Even though, that wass not my point as you
can see above. My point is that you want to analyze a program (in fact, any
human artifact) semantically, which is an exercise involving the identification
of definitions, interpreting semantic information as a structure with
cross-references, etc.
DE:
The reason that UNL needs to be at the table is that global
society is on a track of being totally dependent on software driven processess.
I believe you. But consider this:
Curiously enough, we have not managed to use even the simplest
terms/paradigms of data processing in describing our models of the world (in
thinking). Typically, there is a great hullaboo about databases and knowledge
representation collections, including ontologies but nothing is modelled about
their processing in the mind as an analogy to computer EDP, except from trying
to read the mind by using invasive technology in neurology. It should not
matter how data in mind are processed, we should look at it as a black box and
be concerned with the output and the fact that only a part of the workings of
the mind is done rationally and be influenced by will and reason. Typically,
the news headings in the media today are undergoing a change and the
naming conventions of passages and any lengths off texts in the internet seem
to be downright crazy and intentionally ambiguous, because tension creatd by
paradoxes is supposed to increase readership.
Ferenc