Rich,
I disagree. I would say that there is an underlying ontology that we all share (though we may not know it) + additional ontologies which are cultural, mini-cultural,
and personal in nature. There are also views or perspectives onto those ontologies which elaborate needs of a community, set of individuals, or an individual. If humans did not largely have a common ontology, we could never communicate, cooperate, etc. Witness
these distribution list messages: we have disagreement, but we know we have disagreement because largely we have agreement.
In the extreme, a person may develop their own language, but that language by necessity has to ground itself somehow into the things of the world (including
fictitious worlds potentially) in order to have “meaningful” interpretations. A coherent world (even if fictitious) is needed for world reference of those interpretations.
A person could indeed be schizophrenic or have other interpretive/cognitive disfunctions, but one way we characterize these are as anomalous cognitive systems,
which means typically failing to cohere and in the case perhaps of paranoid schizophrenia, as establishing a bizarre set of coherent axioms. How can you establish “bizarre” except via reference to some established notion of reality? Of course you could object
and say that such a description is deprecatory, because it minimizes the individual mind’s contribution or invention. But my guess is that it’s really the individual epistemology that corrupts the real ontology. A bad epistemology doesn’t invalidate the underlying
real ontology; it just distorts it and makes one (the adherent) unable to communicate or, in the extreme, live in that reality.
Personally, I think our cognitive (and physical) systems as animals have enabled us to adapt (and proliferate) to the world because there is a real world we
can adapt to. And that real world has a real ontology.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:25 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality
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
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)
|