----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles
(was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy)
On 25/07/2011 1:14 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
JS: "The next step beyond predicting how to place your foot on a slippery
slope is to design a wakway or a bridge to provide a more secure
footing. Primitive societies learned how to develop that technology by
a few steps of cognitive reasoning beyond just trial and error. Humans
did it by thinking, and spiders did it by genetic learning over millions of
years. But the fundamental principles are *exactly* the same."
Indeed. We learn to do things by doing things: we learn
how to perceive by perception/sensing, how to walk by walking, how to
communicate by communicating, how to read by reading, by trial and
error. You can draw some analogies between doing physical actions by
trial and error and problem solving by way of theories, where the
hypotheses are a sort of trial.
Still it's critical to draw a distinction between the
intellectual processes of predictions or anticipations or forecast and the
physical interactions by stimulus-response coordination
mechanisms.
Why?
What is here questioned? That there are higher cognitive processes
(as knowing, search, deciding, language, intellection,
predicition) and basic cognitive processes (sensing/perception, motor
actions).
Remember the mental "eye of the soul" with intellectual intuition, and
your unique capacity to see ideas, to grasp the essence of things.
For instance, more reliable economic forecasts are done not by various
statistical methods, supported by various theories, but by the
intellectual insight of prevision.
You have got to be kidding!
AA: "The accuracy of economic forecasting has been reduced
by increased uncertainty in the global and national economies snce the
early 1970s... Some of the greatest contributions to the economic forecasting
...come from economists who have the insight to understand the changing
economy of today" (Britannica, Economic Growth and Planning).
One is in need to create a whole taxonomy of sources of errors in
economic forecasting, global and national: partial theories, ideologies,
personal judgments, biases, old or manipulated statistics; no powerful machine
is of any help here.
The whole global crisis was just missed.
Only now a comprehensive/holistic approach, named as the FCA and TBL, is
getting recognition. Any economic growth and planning economic changes
requests accounting not only economic factors, but also ecological capital and
social capital.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 6:15
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy)
Azamat,
No. I gave examples of short-term physical predictions just to
illustrate the point. But every one of those examples can be
extended at any length of time whatever.
> IMO, moving in the physical world, interacting with the
world, manipulating with the world's objects, processing the world's
instant representations, are hardly about predictions, in the strict
sense.
Predicting your next step on a walkway is of *exactly* the same nature
as predicting the weather. Both of them depend on the same laws of
nature: gravity, the behavior of physical objects in a force field,
the relationships among multiple competing forces acting on matter,
etc.
The next step beyond predicting how to place your foot on a slippery
slope is to design a wakway or a bridge to provide a more secure
footing. Primitive societies learned how to develop that technology
by a few steps of cognitive reasoning beyond just trial and error.
Humans did it by thinking, and spiders did it by genetic learning over
millions of years. But the fundamental principles are *exactly* the
same.
The fact that the short-term interactions are learned by trial and
error rather than formal lectures in a physics course is a trivial
difference from the point of view of ontology. There is a continuum
between a child learning how to maintain balance while walking and
engineers using physics to predict how the International Space Station
will interact in the gravitational fields of the earth, sun, and moon.
As far as ontology is concerned, the child and the engineer are
learning about gravity and how to maintain a desired position within its
range of influence. They're making the same kinds of predictions for
the same reasons -- but at different levels of complexity on the
continuum.
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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