HI, Doug and John
This discussion has a moving tartget. Unless you accept mental operations at
work, we never get a steady picture in focus. (01)
John:
If you want a 4-D ontology that is compatible with modern
physics, I strongly recommend Whitehead's ontology, which
makes process fundamental. What some philosophers call
'continuants' are merely slow-moving processes that don't
change their shape very much from one encounter to another.
I also discuss Whitehead, among others, in that article
cited below. (02)
I have not read his ontology yet, but I asume that he has a better picture of
realiyt (hence ontology created) than the rest.Although I do not accept the
term
4D (or 3D for that matter as they are misnomers to me) I agree that intdocuing
time in an ontology is introducing change or movement which is Relation and
which is therefore Verb. (03)
I do not need more primitives than object, property and relation to build an
ontology for any domain. To illustrate my points consider this: (04)
In my view a relation must be embodied by a verb, because
a) a verb is required to represent a predicate
b) a verb is one of the most generic word classes (content words)
where
c) the other two word classes (i.e. nouns and adjectives) sem to
identify
objects in spacetime, whereas
d) nothing but the verbs can represent relations, especially when it
comes
to change and motion behind which you have non-visible entities.
e) Verbs are not possible to grasp the same way as nominals (via
their
boundaries or definitions) and
f) Verbs seem to need a subject and an object even when they are
used in
SV (non transitive) syntax.
g) It is the verb that does not make sense (is not complete) without
the
details of person and tense, hence it is the only word class to allow us to
provide information on the generator/identification of any
communication/message, hence compare two statements and find out who is right
or
wrong (what is tue or false).
Doug: (05)
It takes a lot of learning to get to this stage. (06)
I agree. But if you draw up the path we have been covering new kids can follow
that with ease and learning will be quicker. (07)
Doug: (08)
The infant initially visually perceives patterns of light. Light is
distinguished by color, brightness, and location in the visual field.
Some regions of the brain detect specific patterns such as parallel lines
and concentric disks. (09)
There is no object detection at this point. (010)
As the head moves the patterns move in the visual cortex. Early learning
relates the patterns moving in the visual cortex to something external to
the head. Motion of the head (when detected) causing motion of visual
patterns suggest a fixed existence of whatever causes the patterns. (011)
Similar motions of portions of the visual field occur when the head is
not moving. This suggests that whatever causes the patterns in the
limited sections of the visual field have some existence distinct from
whatever causes the patterns in other parts of the visual field. This
seems to be the origin for the attribution of visual objecthood. The
use of other senses helps ground such objecthood. (012)
Further learning allows objecthood to be assigned to flexible connected
motions and continuous objecthood to be attributed to the source of
similarly moving patterns with a non-moving (or otherwise moving) region
in between (indicative of a separate object between the observer and the
moving object). (013)
Multiple experiences with the same or similar objects allows for
classification of objects by type or individuality based on similarity
of properties of the visual experience. (014)
It is all very well. So what? (015)
> FK Maybe.
>
> Notice that I do not use concepts like partition, kind, type, etc.
> as they are
> not primitives to me. The primitives are still object, property and
> relation (associated with the dichotome facets above) and they are
> generated/produced by mental operations (016)
Aren't objecthood and relations generated by mental operations? Some
visual properties would be primitive, but most properties are assigned
to objects, and thus have to be generated by mental operations as well,
since the objects are. (017)
FK: I need to insert two tables here, my appologies for RTF (018)
LORP-words conversion table * Lorp = Lean Object Relation Property model
Operations/
ORP Recognition/
Identification Isolation/
Comparison Abstraction/
Attribution[1] Materialisation/
Substantiation/
Name giving Production/
Sharing
Object 1 Girl “girl”
Property 1 smile smile “smile”
Object 2 Smile Smile
Object 3/
Product 1 Girlsmile, smilegirl
VS (syntax) Girl smiled
labels Smiling girl Girl of smile Smiler, girl
New information Smile
Operations Specification Generalization Formalization Interpreation Production/
Sharing
Object 1 The (girl) A girl/girls
“g” “girl” Generic/specific ladder
Property 1 generic Variable/keyword Descriptors
Object 2 (her) smile No further properties “s” Change (from no smile
property)
Property>object conversion (019)
Object 3 Girlsmile, smilegirl
VS (syntax) SP (logic) The Girl smiled
labels g+s as tags or key/searchwords
(Boolean operators) Smiling girl
Girl of smile Smiler, girl
New information Smile (020)
________________________________ (021)
[1]A property/attribute and an object is in possessive case (relation) by
definition. Not always symmetrical though. (022)
> the proof for which is already available
> in dictionaries, lexicons, etc.
> But the problem is that the items in those collections (and in other
> repertories) are sorted morphologically (lexically, or alphabetically) on
> forms (names, objects) whereas we want a sort on content (properties)
> which are not available even as a cross reference!! (023)
In an ontology, a sort on property cross reference would be available. (024)
I know. But the problem is that we want a search in terms of properties
(vontent) instead of form (entry words) in cases when we want to learn about
the
world and/or the words. (025)
> Why? because the way such objects (concepts included)
> are generated and thus related is not documented - see the
> debate on process vs. structure. And behind that debate we have the
> problem of representing verbs (change, motion) (026)
Verbs are lexical creations. They represent change (or stasis), including
change in position or orientations which is called motion. (027)
I assume you are discussing the problem of representing change (or stasis)
instead of representing lexical components. (028)
Verbs can be created from any noun and they are never capable of pinpointing
anything but a change, which brings in the issue of speed of perception and
change, the issue of present , past and future, etc. (029)
> in 2D, in a diagram, which by definition is not fit for the job. (030)
I wonder what the definition of diagram is that you refer to. It seems
to me that anything (including text) can be added to a diagram to provide
needed information. Are you stating that change can not be described
in language? Written language is 1D; so should be no more fit for the
job than a 2D representation. (031)
Just look at the multitudes of diagrams available. (specific diagram types)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagram
Neither 1D nor 2D are fir for representing movement. representing something in
2D or 1D is drawing something in a linear fashion. While in 1D you chnage
directions at the end of the line, it is different with pictures.Chunking in
writing is done by spaces and symbols (. ! ?, etc.) with diagrams it is
different, The analysis or interpretation of whichever format is where mental
operations start. (032)
ferenc (033)
-- doug (034)
> My best regards, ferenc (035)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (036)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (037)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (038)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (039)
|