Dear Ravi,
I agree that we see the same thing differently. It was well
explained in the quote:
Thus, whereas sensation
prescissed and taken as such actively
filters but passively
receives incoming stimuli, perception by contrast
actively structures sensation
into things to be sought, things to be avoided,
and things that don't matter
one way or the other. Yet what constitutes
a pattern of stimuli as
desirable and to be sought or menacing and to
be avoided depends less on
the stimuli than upon the biological constitu-
tion of the organism
receiving the stimuli. Thus, the pattern of stimuli,
in perception as contrasted
to sensation as such, is actively woven, not
passively received. Between
and among sensory elements of stimulation,
the organism itself weaves a
network of subsequent relations which obtain
only in the perceiving, not
prior to and independent of it.
What does " prescissed " mean? I can't get google to
define it, or anywhere else.
So he defines sensation as the impinging of energy onto sensors,
while the perception is the active interpretation of the said senses'
sensations. The quote is from page 4/13 of:
https://manoftheword.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/umwelt-deely.pdf
From the same source, on page 5/13:
So it is clear that
experience, for any organism, does not simply consist of
anything that is `there'
prior to and independently of the experience, but
only of `what is there'
within and dependently upon the experience.
...
So that, however many or few
relations within the experience may also obtain
independently of the
experience, these relationships have meaning only
insofar as and as they are
incorporated with that larger network of
relations which constitutes perception
in contrast to (while inclusive of)
sensation, upon whose pattern
the appearance of objects as such depends.
And this larger network
involves relations which would not obtain but for
the biological constitution
of the perceiving organism acting as inter-
pretant even of what is given
in sensation along with, indeed, within, the
perception of objects as
objects.
...
The objective meaning of each
world and each part
within each world depends
less on physical being than it does on how the
relations constituting the
Umwelt intersect. The difference between objects
and things makes mistakes
possible, but it is also what makes for the
possibility of meaning in
life, and different meanings in different lives.
That makes the umwelt pretty clearly:
that segment of reality which
the organism senses and then perceives.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ravi Sharma
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 4:17 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology based conversational interfaces
Even if we confine ourselves to humans, since our
understanding about this (planet for example) is so varied, we "see"
the same thing differently.
In terms of science, those who are discoverers, see much
more and earlier than some of us who are not at forefronts.
Hans Bethe - Noble Laureate who understood nuclear
astrophysicist told in answer to his girl friend's statement praising the light
from different stars, " I am one the few who understand why they
shine".
Like the Word in discussed in German - in Sanskrit
"Aatm-Saat" Implies different extent of realization, often self but
also regarding physical world.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
John,
Thanks for the reference. It's a three page definition of Umwelt, but
here is a salient quote of what you may have meant:
What UexkuÈ ll uniquely realized was that the
physical environment, in whatever sense it may be said to be the `same' for all
organisms (we are speaking, of course, of the environment on earth, though much
of what we say could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to biospheres on other
planets should such eventually be found), is not the world in which any given
species as such actually lives out its life. No. Each biological life-form, by
reason of its distinctive bodily constitution (its `biological heritage', as we
may say), is suited only to certain parts and aspects of the vast physical
universe. And when this `suitedness to' takes the bodily form of cognitive
organs, such as are our own senses, or the often quite di€erent sensory
modalities discovered in other lifeforms, then those aspects and only those
aspects of the physical environment which are proportioned to those modalities
become `objecti®ed', that is to say, made present not merely physically but
cognitively as well.
For those interested in conversational interfaces, Here is a free pdf about
discourse and conversational analysis:
https://abudira.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/discourse-analysis-by-gillian-brown-george-yule.pdf
There are a lot of discourse analysis papers in pdf on the web, but very few
are really about the ontology within which a conversational system must
operate. Most are more Social Science, or English or Philosophy in
context and don't go to the symbolic level. This is the best book I have come
across so far, unless someone has a better one, also available on the web in a
PDF or a Kindle version, or otherwise available to the casual
researchers. I will invest some time in this one, but only in studying
it.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich
Cooper,
Chief
Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics
Corporation
MetaSemantics
AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
(
9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:21 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology based conversational interfaces
On 7/11/2015 10:48 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Since you are so persistent about insisting that every observer sees
> the same objective reality as the next one, I will concede the point to
you.
That's not what I said.
Everybody knows that different people (and animals) have different views,
opinions, and ways of perceiving, thinking, and acting.
For example, your pet dog, cat, or whatever may live in your home.
But you and your pet have very different experiences and ways of perceiving
and acting. But it would be misleading to say that you and your pet live
in different houses.
If you want a technical term that has an associated theory that has been
explored in some depth, I suggest 'Umwelt'. The 'Welt'
component means 'world', but the theory of the Umwelt focuses on the way
it's experienced. See the article by John Deely:
https://manoftheword.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/umwelt-deely.pdf
An excerpt:
> an Umwelt is not merely the aspects of the environment accessed in
> sensation. Far more is it the manner in which those aspects are
> networked together as and to constitute 'objects of experience'...
> Jakob von Uexküll ... saw that the difference between objects of
> experience and elements of sensation is determined primarily not by
> anything in the physical environment as such but by the relation or,
> rather, network and set of relations that obtains between whatever may
> be 'in fact' present physically in the surroundings and the cognitive
> constitution of the biological organism interacting with those
> surroundings here and now.
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
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile