Dear Robert,
Thanks for your thoughts. To say that
there is ONE objective reality to be experienced by all observers is to go
beyond the actual evidence. We already know that quantum mechanics insists on
dualities of various kinds. We still don’t know how to distinguish wave from
particle in many physics problems. The physics explanation is simply that we
are not familiar with the phenomenon at quantum level; therefore we can’t
expect it to be intuitive.
But what I am proposing is that,
regardless of whether reality is monopolar or multipolar, our perception is
focused by our individual behaviors, our learned personal experiences, and our subjective
belief systems. The three articles I cited show scientific evidence that such
active interpretation of reality forms our ideation of reality.
Muslims see a very different world than
Westerners do. So do Buddhists, Apaches, and rain forest tribes in Brazil. My
point of interest is not so much in whether reality is monopolar or multipolar
as in how humans perceive, control and plan for reality. Specifically, how we
do it differently from each other.
An ontology is not an objective
phenomenon. It is a purely subjective phenomenon that some people think is
universally perceived in the same way by all observers. I disagree. I have
provided evidence (anecdotal only at this time) that different people perceive
differently the same situation in important ways. It is very likely that the
differences described in those three articles are just a few of the experimentally
verifiable differences among people’s view of reality.
-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 rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014
9:08 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality
I don't see what the
purported evidence is evidence of.
There is a difference between theories of reality and reality itself. That we
can come up with different theories, and that those theories may be influence
(or biased) by certain pyschological (or other) factors does not mean there is
no universal ontology. (I say this with the understanding that "universal
ontology" is in the philosophical sense, basically meaning that there is
an objective (mind-independent) reality...and that it is knowable). Now why one
would subscribe to a view questioning (or the stronger: denying) that there is
a reality independent on minds, I cannot say. But in doing so (at least the
stronger), they would negate science itself, and therefore their own mind.
As for natural kinds: by their very definition (or by the common
philosophical understanding of them), they are delineations of a
mind-independent reality, hence natural. The only change I would make to this
would be to remind persons that minds are themselves parts of reality and hence
natural.
To say beliefs steer (in a strong sense as in determine) perception is
likely too strong; I would not take the articles cited too much to heart. The
universe itself is dynamically changing, as in mind. One limitation of the
entire knowledge representation (and related fields) is that snapshots are
(perhaps presently necessarily) used to represent a dynamically changing world.
Respectfully,
Robert
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in or attached to this
email is private and confidential, is protected from disclosure and is intended
only for the person to whom it is addressed. Review, reproduction, or use of
this information by unintended or unauthorized recipients is prohibited. If you
have received this email in error, please notify the sender, delete it from any
and all your computer systems, and do not read, retransmit, retain, print,
publish, distribute, disclose or copy this information, or take any action in
reliance thereon. This also means that it's expected that the content of this
message will not be shared with others without the consent of the sender.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Here is yet another
anecdotal evidence atom that
the way we individually see the world biases our
interpretations of it:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-beliefs-attitudes.htm
l
Those of us who have been parents know how
effectively the generations are culturally
separated:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-beliefs-attitudes.htm
l
Mothers, according to the following article form a
deluded belief that their first child is shorter
than they are, and suddenly lose that delusion
when their second child is born:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-12-mothers-youn
gest-shorter.html#inlRlv
With this much evidence, can we still consider
there to be a universal ontology of any natural
kind, at the top or the bottom of the lattice?
If beliefs (constructed during ontogeny, as a
slice of reality is encountered by an organism
with a slice of the human genome) steer both
perception and logic, then how could a logical
rendering of a snapshot of one person's experience
be anything but dynamically changing?
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|