Re: Idealism vs Materialism: universal formal ontology
"azamat abdoullaev" <[email protected]> Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:29:01 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000901c53502$86f495f0$9b028d0a@HOMEPC> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5351B.ABC10530
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating ElementGarry,
Definitely, how we know the world of things in the course of cognitive =
development has its own conceptual value but must be presented as a =
relevant issue to the SUO task. Maybe, it will do all us good to derive =
some object lesson from 'constructivism' as well, in any version and =
edition, even an extreme one.=20
Reading the reference you supplied, where the author is indulging in =
metaphorical comparisons with evolitionary biology, one can run into the =
following 'revolutionary' claims:=20
1. ''Radical constructivism is radical because it breaks with convention =
and develops a theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect =
an "objective" ontological reality, but exclusively an ordering and =
organization of a world constituted by our experience. The radical =
constructivist has relinquished "metaphysical realism" once and for all, =
and finds himself in full agreement with Piaget, who says: "Intelligence =
organizes the world by organizing itself"'.
2.''It does not matter what an object might be like in "reality" or from =
an "objective" point of view'';=20
3.''The definition of the relationship between knowledge and reality, =
and that is precisely the point where radical constructivism steps out =
of the traditional scenario of epistemology. Once knowing is no longer =
understood as the search for an iconic representation of ontological =
reality but, instead, as a search for fitting ways of behaving and =
thinking, the traditional problem disappears.''
Being quite symptomatic and self-revealing, these statements come from =
clear misunderstanding of the nature of the world and knowledge. For, =
to find the rational answer to the question 'how do we know the world of =
entities?' , one first needs to resolve 'what is the world of things we =
know?'. As I have noticed in my communication with Chris, dual thinking, =
the tendency to classify things into two opposed classes, the damnation =
of all metaphysical argumentation, makes all the confusion here again. =
As it stands to any unprejudiced mind, there is one grand reality as the =
entire totality of entities, as the whole world of things, as the =
aggregate and the sum of real things (objects, persons, situations, =
changes, processes, and relations). But we, human beings, wallowing in =
the egotistic belief that to be (for real things) is to be known by us, =
created our personal reality, presenting this mental experience as a =
separatly existing world. Thus opposing the reality (as it actually is) =
to the personal, experiential reality (determining how things appear to =
us). Which is actually nothing else but one part of the whole world =
along with the physical universe, biological reality, social reality, =
and information reality.
Unlike nonliving things, Nature saw to it that all living beings were =
endowed with capacity to accomodate, adjust, or adapt to the =
surroundings by detecting changes (stimuli) in the external and internal =
environment via chemical means and diffuse or centralized nervous =
systems. It is a lucky fact that some of them are added on the top by =
knowledge processing mechanisms: mental operations of perception, =
attention, learning and remembering, intuition, representation, and =
believing and higher cognitive processes of knowing, thinking, deciding, =
and language. But being equipped with active consciousness and =
intelligent mind only aditionally contributes to better adjusting (via =
Peaget's assimilation and accomodation) to the real states of things by =
generating constructs, concepts, hypotheses, rules, theories, and =
actions capable to survive the reality testing of life. All points to =
that the relationship of knowledge (cognitive agents) and reality is the =
dynamic part-whole interrelationship, where the meaning of a relative =
term must be drawn from its correlative. Namely, the meaning of the =
world as 'objective reality' involves the concept of experiential =
reality as 'subjective reality', and vice versa. For neurologists and =
neuroscientist as well as for prospective artificial agents our =
personal, experiential reality is a piece of objective world, to be =
described, explained, and represented in a systematic and scientific =
way.=20
Instead of exaggerating the role of higher cognitive structures and =
mechanisms, aggravated with futile copying and simulating the human mind =
by formal logical models (see Project Halo on 'Digital Aristotle'), we =
need to discover a canonical formal representation of the 'ontological =
reality', including the experiential reality as its inherent component =
in spite of this inflated idea of our importance in the world of things. =
This is a realistic way to construct a 'viable' knowledge and reasoning =
system which virtue will be measured by what it knows about reality, by =
the accuracy of the world knowledge representation, that is, by the =
universality of the formal ontology constructed and its potency to be =
applicable to all major realms of being, to every basic sphere of =
reality, to any knowledge domain.=20
Regards,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: azamat abdoullaev=20
Cc: [email protected] ; =
[email protected]=20
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:53 AM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Azamat,
You pointed in response to my message on primitives the advance that =
Kant proposed moving from "substance" and "state" to concepts of pure =
thught that he argued as more foundational. I wanted to follow up in a =
pragmatic/Piagetian fashion. =20
AA>This method is old as the Greek world, Aristotle drawn such =
elemental classes as substance, state, quality, quantity, change, and =
relation from experience, seemingly from verbal classification of Greek =
grammar. And they mold the matrix of human experience and knowledge, all =
forms of thought. Alternatively, Kant proposed his table of categories =
as pure concept of human understanding with some modifications, lifting =
the class of relations over substances. As a result, no good formal and =
general ontology can do AA>without substances, states, changes, and =
relations.
Kant's distinction is a good departure point recognizing the =
constructionist nature of concepts like "substance" from more primitive =
things. Piaget's constructionsist cognitive psycholgy gave us an idea =
about how some of these ideas emerge in children as part of development. =
The psychologist Ernst . von Glasersfeld came built on Piaget in his =
"Radical Constructivism, (see his The construction of knowledge, =
Intersystems Publ., Salinas, CA, 1988.). He distinguishes between =
"ontological reality" and "experiential reality" in the following way: =
ontic reality delivers the raw material out of which our knowledge =
processing system constructs the familar modell made up of objects, =
events, relations, etc. It is these constructions that are our =
experiential reality (the order of things embodied in our knowledge). =
You can read more about these ideas in his article "An Introduction to =
Radical Constructivism" which is online at =
:http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.html
A final connection I would make is back to your position that it isn't =
important how concepts are formed in the human mind:
AA>It is not so important how the concepts formulated in the human =
mind, by pure thought, intutition, experience or experiment, or under =
divine inspiration. What is crucial, ontological concepts must represent =
the basic kinds of reality, they have to mean real distinctions and =
AA>differences. And so to be the master terms whereby any cognitive =
agent can effectively reason about the world.
Well this idea of a "basic reality" gets me thinking back to the old =
discussions of some pragmatic base to such basic/objectivity reality. If =
we use the ontic to experiental distinction as one of "ingredients" =
forged by constructionist model building into mental "product" (concept =
of substance etc.) then these mential products (knowledge) can not =
"represent" reality (the raw material), instead it must prove to be =
pragmatgically valid by a "functional fit", that is by allowing us to =
attain the goals we happen to have chosen. In Glaserfeld work this is =
called the "Model validation hypothesis" which says;
A good model is not a copy of an independent order, but a working =
(viable) formalisation (one which fulfills the aim for which it is =
beeing used) of the order which we ourselves generate in knowledge. So =
we can't assume that basic reality is adequately modelled in terms of =
what we call "objects". Objects are given to us as "objects of =
experience" as we develop cognition and only after we have constructed =
an order for them in our knowledge. Thus we can think about objects =
only after we have ourselves constructged them. Putting it in a =
combination Piaget and pragmatice terms we might say that - A model =
(like an ontological model) is not really an abstraction of the observed =
system/world reality, but a construction that allows us to interact =
succesfully with the observed system/world reality."
Gary
-----Original Message-----=20
From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Wed 3/23/2005 4:17 PM=20
To: Gary Berg-Cross=20
Cc: [email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
Subject: Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Gary,=20
See my comments below.
Azamat
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: azamat abdoullaev=20
Cc: [email protected] ; =
[email protected]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Azamat,
Your illustrations helped me understand your approach to these =
very difficult topics of primitive/fundamental ideas that ground an =
upper ontology. As in the quantum realm our naked commonsense may not =
serve us well here but a consistent exploration of different, fallible =
hypotheses of these fundamentals concept should do it. This might =
include, to use Thagard=E2=80=99s (1992) related discovery methods, =
-data-driven (generalizations from observation and from experiments with =
ontologies, abductive processes to explain patterns, and =
coherence-driven corrections to resolve contradictions arising between =
hypotheses and observation. We then attempt to restore consistency =
adapting, removing or modifying one or more assumptions which are =
judged contributes to the derivation of contradiction.
This method is old as the Greek world, Aristotle drawn such =
elemental classes as substance, state, quality, quantity, change, and =
relation from experience, seemingly from verbal classification of Greek =
grammar. And they mold the matrix of human experience and knowledge, all =
forms of thought. Alternatively, Kant proposed his table of categories =
as pure concept of human understanding with some modifications, lifting =
the class of relations over substances. As a result, no good formal and =
general ontology can do without substances, states, changes, and =
relations.
To put this back, for a moment, in the philosophical contexts we =
started with in earlier messages, I would add an idea from Clarence =
Lewis =E2=80=98s "A Pragmatic Conception of the a priori," where he =
rejects Kantian concepts of the a priori arguing that=E2=80=9D=20
"The thought which both rationalism and empiricism have missed is =
that there are principles, representing the initiative of mind, which =
impose upon experience no limitations whatever, but that such =
conceptions are still subject to alternation on pragmatic grounds when =
the expanding boundaries of experience reveal their felicity as =
intellectual instruments." Underlining is mine.
Thus, paraphrasing some of Lewis=E2=80=99s work and its =
interpretation by others, what is important about an hypothesis, =
including ones on primitive ontological hypotheses, is that it is a =
"concept" -- a purely logical meaning -- which we bring to bear on =
experience. The concepts we formulate are in part determined by our =
immediate, pragmatic interests and in part by the historical nature of =
individual experience as researchers. In the sense Sowa has talked about =
fundamental scientific laws they are outside our methods (a priori in a =
sense) because they order experience in a way that can be investigated =
consistently across all of our historical experience and our pragmatic =
interests at the time.=20
It=E2=80=99s a knowledge hypothesis that this type of ordering =
would be true of our more fundamental categorical notions =E2=80=93 the =
ones we need for an upper ontology. We formulate such upper level =
concepts based on our experience and the pragamatics of the time, but =
our intuition is that we arrive at what we will call a ontological =
primitive concept that transcends these pragmatic starting points.
It is not so important how the concepts formulated in the human =
mind, by pure thought, intutition, experience or experiment, or under =
divine inspiration. What is crucial, ontological concepts must represent =
the basic kinds of reality, they have to mean real distinctions and =
differences. And so to be the master terms whereby any cognitive agent =
can effectively reason about the world.
BTW, this discussion has mostly slipped beyond the Idealism vs. =
Materialism back to one more direct toward the pragmatics of developing =
upper ontological topics.=20
I agree, but never mind. If you like, just change the subject name.
Best.
1=20
Regards,
Gary=20
-----Original Message-----=20
From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Tue 3/22/2005 1:26 PM=20
To: Gary Berg-Cross=20
Cc: [email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
Subject: Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Gary,
Let me clear up the matter in a more illustrative way.
Traditionally, reality is separated into two or three disjoint =
divisions of the same rank and status:
1. as concrete individuals (as contingent things) and universals =
(as necessary things);
2. as concrete things, collections (or classes or sets) of =
concrete things (concrete universals) and abstract, conceptual classes, =
or universals per se.=20
Written in abbreviated forms, the above may be presented as the =
CC (concrete and conceivable) schema or the CCC (concrete, collective, =
and conceivable) perspective of reality; what is commonly expressed in =
the natural languages as concrete names, collective names, and abstract =
names. Then most existent general and upper ontologies, like the OWL and =
SUO, can be assigned to the CC or CCC schemas, closing the bottom with =
nothing or nonentity, the top with the concept of individual thing or =
entity.=20
Evidently, we need to consider the things in the right order of =
their presentation, neither as an equal-order separation nor in the =
inverse order, commencing from the concrete objects, properties, and =
events, and specific relations to the abstract ontological classes of =
substance, state, change, and relation. The order of things here makes =
all the difference; after all, a young woman personality may be quite =
different depending on the order of occurrences of her life experiences: =
becoming a mother, a college graduation, and becoming a wife.
We have to lift up Entity or Thing or Being as the topmost class =
of all classes complemented with the concept of nothing (the null class =
as part of everything, which has nothing to do with absurdity). The =
ultimate class of thing or entity will then denote a single, unitary =
ontological category having as its parts the entity classes and the =
relationship classes, as well as all the infinite gamut of their =
instances and occurrences. We thus attached to the scientific way of =
considering reality as the whole class of entity consisting of entity =
classes and relationship classes, all together constituting the nature =
and essence of the individual things in the real world. So to have a =
universal ontology, you have just follow the C/C/C descending model of =
the world, where sets and individuals are only instantiations or =
representations of the entity-universal, that is, they must be =
considered of much lower rank in the ontological status.
Note when sets and individuals are recognized as basic as =
universals, we are doomed to create redundant entities and =
relationships, i.e., an imaginary world of nonexistent things, while =
trying to construct a formal general ontology language, like GOL, an =
otherwise interesting project.
So it looks that your second reading is closer to the point.
Regarding you entity classification (or rather object?), maybe =
it would of use at your top to divide objects into two wide categories, =
material, spatial substances and nonspatial, conceptual objects, and =
somehow include the term 'representation' as well, before 'icon'.For =
more particulars, visit my website: 'Standard Ontology for Global =
Intelligent Cyberspace'.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: azamat abdoullaev=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Azamat,
>You are raising intriguing questions regarding meaning and =
processible ontologies. I hope my short contribution will make the =
picture clearer.
Thanks for the kind words. From what you wrote signs we may =
share some ideas from the semiotics realm and connecting this to what =
you called =E2=80=9Contological linguistics=E2=80=9D, - a new phrase for =
me, but if its subject matter is =E2=80=9Contological grammar, syntax, =
and real valued semantics) this sounds like the issues that the =
development of such things as OWL struggle although you might have to =
spell out what you mean by and real valued semantics.=20
AA>In the ontological language, real meaning is fixed as the =
semantic values of signs, determined by the entities and relationships =
in the real world.
Are you talking about relating signs to the set-theoretic =
(logical) aspect of an ontology? That is using signs in the ontology =
construction as a formal logical system composed of its =
objects-primitives, classes, individuals, and properties, logical syntax =
(notation techniques, formation and transformation rules), and formal =
semantics (model theory), such as the OWL is doing?
Another way of speaking about this is to imagine using =
=E2=80=9Csign meaning=E2=80=9D to develop a =E2=80=9Cmeaningful=E2=80=9D =
primitives Entity, Thing etc. the kinds of objects with fundamental =
definitions, axioms and those =E2=80=9Creal-world semantics=E2=80=9D you =
mentioned. This allows a common interpretation by humans and systems =
of the ontological theory and its truth conditions in the world of =
things, entities, or beings.=20
BTW, given that we want to discuss signs and symbols our =
ontology will include concepts like =E2=80=9Ccontentbearing objects: =
such as in the small taxonomic part shown below (just to connect to the =
linguistic part of ontology)
=E2=80=A2 Entity
Physical
Object
ContentBearingObject
Icon
SymbolicString
LinguisticExpression
WrittenLinguisticExpression
Text
Sentence
Phrase
Word
Morpheme =20
Regards,
Gary Berg-Cross
-----Original Message-----=20
From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Mon 3/21/2005 4:11 PM=20
To: Gary Berg-Cross=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Subject: Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Dear Gary,
You are raising intriguing questions regarding meaning and =
processible ontologies. I hope my short contribution will make the =
picture clearer.=20
To have correct understanding of knowledge, meaning ought to =
be viewed as a meaning relation between signs (symbols, words or ideas, =
thoughts) and things in the real world. Any relation by nature is =
two-sided or bi-directional (from signs to things as well as form things =
to signs). The ontological perspective comes out here as most =
fundamental; for it is mapping the real structures to the sign =
structures (which include conceptual structures). This is the subject =
matter of ontological linguistics (ontological grammar, syntax, and real =
valued semantics), which shouldn't be mixed with its complement, =
linguistic ontology. In the ontological language, real meaning is fixed =
as the semantic values of signs, determined by the entities and =
relationships in the real world. Once the sign structures with their =
associations in a certain domain knowledge are sorted out as truly =
conforming to the ontological structures, you can enjoy a =
machine-processible ontology.
The second issue is inherently connected with the successful =
resolution of the first one.=20
Materialism-Idealism distinction is the result of an innate =
tendency of the human mind to all sorts of dichotomy and duality. This =
opposite division is a bad heritage of classic metaphysics, born by the =
confused polarity of all things as abstract, ideal realities (froms, =
ideas) and material, physical realities. The practice of modern science =
is inclined to deny as the only reality either ideas or matter, where =
one exists as subordinate to another. The task of general formal =
ontology is to view the abstract entities and the concrete things as =
two parts of one real world, as two distinct domains of reality, the =
universe of matter and the universe of mind, somehow interrelated to =
each other. And the concepts of mind and matter should be synthesized =
not within materialism or idealism but rather within a general =
ontological theory encompassing both parts as distinct levels within an =
all-comprehensive hierarchy of things.
After all, to comprehend the general rules, principles, and =
mechanisms of such relationships (ideality-actuality) is the challenging =
undertaking for all who signed up for ontology classes.=20
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: Chris Lofting ; =
[email protected]=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
This discussion, along with Re: nature -> "human brain" -> =
"language terms" =3D=3D>> knowledge ?,
has wandered over considerable ground but a question was =
raised along the way about =E2=80=9Chow then we should model =
meaning?.=E2=80=9D
One issue was can "knowledge" ("reality" yes, but not =
"knowledge") exist independently of the brain?
A simple counter question occurred to me, =E2=80=9Cif such =
knowledge can[t be defined how why are trying to build processable =
ontologies ? Isn=E2=80=99t that a endeavor to capture meaning outside =
of the brain?
John Sowa covered this in passing, noting that our =
computer applications include =E2=80=9Cknowledge=E2=80=9D=20
JS> First, knowledge is certainly codifiable in a way that
solves a great many problems. Every program ever written
does that, and there are an enormous number of very
successful ones. But each of those programs solves a
particular special case. The problem we face is to
relate those special cases by general principles.
JS>And that is where the difficulties lie.
Peirce=E2=80=99s distinction between REAL and TRUE may be =
helpful to some of us in ontological community discussion with an aim =
to building up usable knowledge . =20
Perice "The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, =
information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is =
therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very =
origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception =
essentially involves the notion of a community, without definite limits, =
and capable of a definite increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311).=20
To elaborate further this is now he addressed the =
distinction between opinions on the true, and the real in "How to Make =
Our Ideas Clear ":=20
"The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by =
all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object =
represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain =
reality" (CP 5.407). =E2=80=A6.=20
Peirce continues later with=20
"reality is independent, not necessarily of thought in =
general, but only of what you or I or any finite number of men may think =
about it," =E2=80=A6.(that), "though the object of the final opinion =
depends on what that opinion is, yet what that opinion is does not =
depend on what you or I or any man thinks" (CP 5.408). underlining is =
mine for emphasis
Which brings me, at least, back to John=E2=80=99s opinion =
that he accuracy of any scientific hypothesis
JS> does not depend
> on who or what discovered it or on any methods of =
thinking,
> any techniques of problem solving, or any apparatus =
that
JS> he, she, or it might have used to arrive at the =
hypothesis.
I can understand this in light of Peirce=E2=80=99 efforts =
to define clear thinking, which we need in Ontology building.
To conclude with yet another Peircian quote. =
Here=E2=80=99s one he used on the path to a 3rd way between the realists =
and idealist.
The philosophical problem is to resolve two contradictory =
claims about the basis of reality:=20
1.. the principal thesis of realism - there is a reality =
that exists independently of our representations of it or=20
2.. Idealism claim that what we perceive as real =
dependent is upon our (usually expressed as mental) representations of =
=E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D.=20
As James Liszka observed the clash of the two theses is =
nicely expressed in Peirce's "Consequences of the Four Incapacities ":
"...there is no thing which is in-itself in the sense of =
not being relative to the mind, though things which are relative to the =
mind doubtless are, apart from the relation" (5.311).=20
Liszkae called this 3rd way a discursive realism to =
distinguish it from the later effort of Rorty or Foucault, in which =
there is neither a privileged discourse, nor can any representational =
system that can mirror a reality external to such a system - what might =
be called the discursive idealism. Someone may able to drawn up the =
realism to idealism continuum, which seems to be as embedded in our =
discussions as the ontology continuum.
Gary Berg-Cross
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5351B.ABC10530
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD><TITLE>Idealism vs =
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Garry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>Definitely, how we know the world =
of things=20
in the course of cognitive development has its own conceptual =
value=20
but must be presented as a relevant issue to the SUO =
task.=20
Maybe, it will do all us good to derive some object lesson=20
from 'constructivism' as well, in any version and edition, even an =
extreme=20
one.</FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>Reading =
the reference you supplied,=20
where the author is indulging in metaphorical comparisons with =
evolitionary=20
biology, one can run into the following 'revolutionary' claims:=20
</FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1. ''Radical constructivism is =
<I>radical</I>=20
because it breaks with convention and develops a theory of knowledge in =
which=20
knowledge does not reflect an "objective" ontological reality, but =
exclusively=20
an ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience. =
The=20
radical constructivist has relinquished "metaphysical realism" once and =
for all,=20
and finds himself in full agreement with Piaget, who says: "Intelligence =
organizes the world by organizing itself"'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2.''It does not matter what an object =
might be like=20
in "reality" or from an "objective" point of view''; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3.''The definition of the relationship =
between=20
knowledge and reality, and that is precisely the point where radical=20
constructivism steps out of the traditional scenario of epistemology. =
Once=20
knowing is no longer understood as the search for an iconic =
representation of=20
ontological reality but, instead, as a search for <I>fitting</I> ways of =
behaving and thinking, the traditional problem =
disappears.''</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Being quite symptomatic and =
self-revealing, these=20
statements come from clear misunderstanding of the nature of the world =
and=20
knowledge. For, to find the rational answer to the question 'how =
do we=20
know the world of entities?' , one first needs to resolve 'what is the =
world of=20
things we know?'. As I have noticed in my communication =
with=20
Chris, dual thinking, the tendency to classify things into two opposed=20
classes, the damnation of all metaphysical argumentation, =
makes all=20
the confusion here again. As it stands to any =
unprejudiced mind, there=20
is one grand reality as the entire totality of entities, as the =
whole world=20
of things, as the aggregate and the sum of real things (objects, =
persons,=20
situations, changes, processes, and relations). But we, human beings, =
wallowing=20
in the egotistic belief that to be (for real things) is to be known =
by us,=20
created our personal reality, presenting this mental experience as=20
a separatly existing world. Thus opposing the reality (as it =
actually=20
is) to the personal, experiential reality (determining how things =
appear to=20
us). Which is actually nothing else but one part of the whole world =
along=20
with the physical universe, biological reality, social reality,=20
and information reality.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Unlike nonliving things, Nature =
saw to it that=20
all living beings were endowed with capacity to accomodate, adjust, =
or=20
adapt to the surroundings by detecting changes (stimuli) in =
the=20
external and internal environment via chemical means and diffuse or =
centralized nervous systems. It is a lucky fact that some of =
them are=20
added on the top by knowledge processing mechanisms: mental operations =
of=20
perception, attention, learning and remembering, intuition, =
representation, and=20
believing and higher cognitive processes of knowing, thinking, deciding, =
and=20
language. But being equipped with active consciousness and =
intelligent mind=20
only aditionally contributes to better adjusting (via Peaget's =
assimilation=20
and accomodation) to the real states of things by=20
generating constructs, concepts, hypotheses, rules, theories, and =
actions=20
capable to survive the reality testing of life. All points to =
that=20
the relationship of knowledge (cognitive agents) and reality is=20
the dynamic part-whole interrelationship, where the meaning of =
a=20
relative term must be drawn from its correlative. Namely, the meaning of =
the=20
world as 'objective reality' involves the concept of experiential =
reality as=20
'subjective reality', and vice versa. For neurologists and =
neuroscientist as=20
well as for prospective artificial agents our personal, experiential =
reality is=20
a piece of objective world, to be described, explained, and =
represented in=20
a systematic and scientific way. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial>Instead of exaggerating the =
role of=20
higher cognitive structures and mechanisms, aggravated with futile =
copying=20
and simulating the human mind by formal logical models (see =
Project=20
Halo on 'Digital Aristotle'), we need to discover a =
canonical formal=20
representation of the 'ontological reality', including =
the experiential=20
reality as its inherent component in spite of this inflated idea of =
our importance in the world of things. This is a realistic way to =
construct=20
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=3D2>a 'viable' knowledge and=20
reasoning system which virtue will be measured by what it =
knows=20
about reality, by the accuracy of the world knowledge =
representation,=20
that is, by the universality of the formal ontology=20
constructed and its potency to be applicable to all major realms of =
being,=20
to every basic sphere of reality, to any knowledge domain.</FONT>=20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Regards,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Azamat</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN>----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [email protected] =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary=20
Berg-Cross</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">azamat abdoullaev</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
; <A [email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 28, 2005 =
6:53=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism vs =
Materialism :=20
Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Azamat,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You pointed in response to my message =
on=20
primitives the advance that Kant proposed moving from "substance" and =
"state"=20
to concepts of pure thught that he argued as more foundational. I =
wanted to=20
follow up in a pragmatic/Piagetian fashion.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><SPAN><SPAN>AA>This method is old as =
the Greek=20
world, Aristotle drawn such elemental classes as substance, =
state,=20
quality, quantity, change, and relation from experience, seemingly =
from verbal=20
classification of Greek grammar. And they mold the matrix of human =
experience=20
and knowledge, all forms of thought. Alternatively, Kant proposed =
his=20
table of categories as pure concept of human understanding with some=20
modifications, lifting the class of relations over substances. As a =
result, no=20
good formal and general ontology can do AA>without substances, =
states,=20
changes, and relations.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D2><FONT =
face=3DArial><SPAN><SPAN>Kant's=20
distinction is a good departure point recognizing the =
constructionist=20
nature of concepts like "substance" from more primitive things. =
Piaget's=20
constructionsist cognitive psycholgy gave us an idea about how some of =
these=20
ideas emerge in children as part of development. The =
psychologist=20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN>Ernst . von Glasersfeld came built on =
Piaget=20
in his <SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">"<FONT=20
size=3D2>Radical Constructivism</FONT></SPAN>, (see his <I>The =
construction of=20
knowledge</I>, Intersystems Publ., Salinas, CA, 1988.). <FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2>He distinguishes between "ontological reality" and =
"experiential=20
reality" in the following way</FONT><FONT size=3D2>: ontic reality =
delivers the=20
raw material out of which our knowledge processing system constructs =
the=20
familar modell made up of objects, events, relations, etc. It is =
these=20
constructions that are our experiential reality (the order of =
things=20
embodied in our knowledge). </FONT></SPAN> You can read more =
about=20
these ideas in his article "An Introduction to Radical=20
Constructivism" which is online at :</FONT><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.ht=
ml">http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.html</=
A></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D+0><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2>A final connection I would make is back to your position that =
it isn't=20
important how concepts are formed in the human=20
mind:</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D+0><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2>AA><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It =
is not so=20
important how the concepts formulated in the human mind, by pure =
thought,=20
intutition, experience or experiment, or under divine inspiration. =
What is=20
crucial, ontological concepts must represent the basic kinds of =
reality, they=20
have to mean real distinctions and AA>differences. And so to be the =
master=20
terms whereby any cognitive agent can effectively reason about the=20
world.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D+0><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN>Well this idea=20
of a "basic reality" gets me thinking back to the old discussions of =
some=20
pragmatic base to such basic/objectivity reality. If we use the =
ontic=20
to experiental distinction as one of "ingredients" forged by =
constructionist=20
model building into mental "product" (concept of substance etc.)=20
then these mential products (knowledge) can not "represent" =
reality (the=20
raw material), instead it must prove to be pragmatgically valid by a=20
"functional fit", that is by allowing us to attain the</FONT> <FONT=20
size=3D2>goals we happen to have chosen. In Glaserfeld work this is =
called the=20
"</FONT><FONT size=3D2><SPAN>Model validation hypothesis" which=20
says;</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D+0><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN>A good model is not a copy of an independent order, but =
a working=20
(viable) formalisation (one which fulfills=20
the </SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT =
size=3D+0><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN>aim for which it is beeing used) of the order which we =
ourselves=20
generate in knowledge. So we can't assume that basic=20
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D2><FONT =
face=3DArial><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT =
size=3D2>reality</FONT> <FONT=20
size=3D2>is adequately modelled in terms of what we call "objects". =
Objects are=20
given to us as "objects of experience" as we develop cognition and =
only=20
after we have <EM>constructed</EM> an order for them in our =
knowledge. =20
Thus we can think about objects only after we have =
ourselves=20
constructged them. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT =
size=3D2> Putting it=20
in a combination Piaget and pragmatice terms we might say =
that - A=20
model (like an ontological model) is not really an abstraction of the =
observed=20
system/world reality, but a construction that allows us to =
interact=20
succesfully with the observed system/world=20
reality."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Gary<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>-----Original Message----- </FONT><BR><B>From:</B> azamat =
abdoullaev=20
[mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wed 3/23/2005 4:17 =
PM=20
<BR><B>To:</B> Gary Berg-Cross <BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
[email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the=20
Differentiating Element<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>See my comments below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Azamat</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> =
<A=20
[email protected] =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary=20
Berg-Cross</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">azamat abdoullaev</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
; <A [email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>=
=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 23, =
2005 5:01=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism vs =
Materialism=20
: Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Azamat,</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Your illustrations =
helped me=20
understand your approach to these very difficult topics of=20
primitive/fundamental ideas that ground an upper ontology.=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>As in the quantum realm our naked commonsense =
may not=20
serve us well here but a consistent exploration of different, =
fallible=20
hypotheses of these fundamentals concept should do it.<SPAN> =
</SPAN>This might include, to use Thagard=E2=80=99s (1992) related =
discovery=20
methods, -<SPAN>data-driven</SPAN> (generalizations from =
observation and=20
from experiments with ontologies, abductive processes to explain =
patterns,=20
and <SPAN>coherence-driven corrections to resolve =
</SPAN>contradictions=20
arising between hypotheses and observation.<SPAN> </SPAN>We =
then=20
attempt to restore consistency adapting, removing =
<SPAN> </SPAN>or=20
modifying one or more assumptions which are judged contributes to =
the=20
derivation of contradiction<SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN>This method is =
old as the=20
Greek world, Aristotle drawn such elemental classes as =
substance,=20
state, quality, quantity, change, and relation from experience, =
seemingly=20
from verbal classification of Greek grammar. And they mold the =
matrix of=20
human experience and knowledge, all forms of =
thought. Alternatively,=20
Kant proposed his table of categories as pure concept of human =
understanding=20
with some modifications, lifting the class of relations over =
substances. As=20
a result, no good formal and general ontology can do without =
substances,=20
states, changes, and relations.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To put this back, =
for a=20
moment, in the philosophical contexts we started with in earlier =
messages,=20
I <SPAN> </SPAN>would add an idea from Clarence Lewis =
=E2=80=98s "A Pragmatic=20
Conception of the <I>a priori</I>," where he rejects Kantian =
concepts of=20
the <I>a priori</I> arguing that=E2=80=9D </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"The thought which =
both=20
rationalism and empiricism have missed is that there are =
principles,=20
representing the initiative of mind, which impose upon experience =
no=20
limitations whatever, but that such conceptions are still subject =
to=20
<U>alternation</U> on pragmatic grounds when the expanding =
boundaries of=20
experience reveal their felicity as intellectual instruments." =
Underlining=20
is mine.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thus, paraphrasing =
some of=20
Lewis=E2=80=99s work and its interpretation by others, what is =
important about an=20
hypothesis, including ones on primitive ontological hypotheses, is =
that it=20
is a "concept" -- a purely logical meaning -- which we bring to =
bear on=20
experience. The concepts we formulate are in part determined by =
our=20
immediate, pragmatic interests and in part by the historical =
nature of=20
individual experience as researchers. In the sense Sowa has talked =
about=20
fundamental scientific laws they are outside our methods (<I>a =
priori</I>=20
in a sense) because they order experience in a way that can be=20
investigated consistently across all of our historical experience =
and our=20
pragmatic interests at the time. </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It=E2=80=99s a =
knowledge hypothesis=20
that this type of ordering <SPAN> </SPAN>would be true of our =
more=20
fundamental categorical notions =E2=80=93 the ones we need for an =
upper ontology.=20
We formulate such upper level concepts based on our experience and =
the=20
pragamatics of the time, but our intuition is that we arrive at =
what we=20
will call a ontological primitive concept that transcends these =
pragmatic=20
starting points.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It is not so important =
how the=20
concepts formulated in the human mind, by pure thought, intutition,=20
experience or experiment, or under divine inspiration. What is =
crucial,=20
ontological concepts must represent the basic kinds of reality, they =
have to=20
mean real distinctions and differences. And so to be the master =
terms=20
whereby any cognitive agent can effectively reason about the=20
world.</SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">BTW, this discussion =
has=20
mostly slipped beyond the Idealism vs. Materialism back to one =
more direct=20
toward the pragmatics of developing upper ontological topics.=20
</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I agree, but never =
mind. If you=20
like, just change the subject name.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Best.</SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1 </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Regards,</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Gary</SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B> =
azamat=20
abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue =
3/22/2005=20
1:26 PM <BR><B>To:</B> Gary Berg-Cross <BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
[email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and =
the=20
Differentiating Element<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Let me clear up the matter in a =
more=20
illustrative way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Traditionally, reality is separated =
into two or=20
three disjoint divisions of the same rank and=20
status:</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">1. as <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
blue">concrete=20
individuals </SPAN>(as contingent things) and <SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: blue">universals</SPAN> (as necessary=20
things);</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">2. as <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
blue">concrete=20
things</SPAN>, <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue">collections =
</SPAN>(or classes=20
or sets) of concrete things (concrete universals) and <SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: blue">abstract, conceptual classes, or =
universals <I>per=20
se</I></SPAN>. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Written in abbreviated forms, the above =
may be=20
presented as the CC (concrete and conceivable) schema or the CCC =
(concrete, collective, and conceivable) perspective of reality; =
what is=20
commonly expressed in the natural languages as concrete names,=20
collective names, and abstract names. Then most =
existent=20
general and upper ontologies, like the OWL and SUO, can be =
assigned to=20
the CC or CCC schemas, closing the bottom with nothing or =
nonentity, the=20
top with the concept of individual thing or entity.=20
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Evidently, we need to consider the =
things in the=20
right order of their presentation, neither as an equal-order =
separation=20
nor in the inverse order, commencing from the concrete objects,=20
properties, and events, and specific relations to the abstract=20
ontological classes of substance, state, change, and relation. =
The order=20
of things here makes all the difference; after all, a young =
woman=20
personality may be quite different depending on the order of =
occurrences=20
of her life experiences: becoming a mother, a college =
graduation, and=20
becoming a wife.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">We =
have to lift=20
up Entity or Thing or Being as the topmost class of all classes=20
complemented with the concept of nothing (the null class as part =
of=20
everything, which has nothing to do with absurdity). The =
ultimate class=20
of thing or entity will then denote a single, unitary =
ontological=20
category having as its parts the entity classes and the =
relationship=20
classes, as well as all the infinite gamut of their instances =
and=20
occurrences. We thus attached to the scientific way of =
considering=20
reality as the whole class of entity consisting of entity =
classes and=20
relationship classes, all together constituting the nature and =
essence=20
of the individual things in the real world.<SPAN> =
</SPAN>So to=20
have a universal ontology, you have just follow the C/C/C=20
descending model of the world, where sets and individuals are =
only=20
instantiations or representations of the entity-universal, that =
is, they=20
must be considered of much lower rank in the ontological=20
status.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Note =
when sets=20
and individuals are recognized as basic as universals, we are =
doomed to=20
create redundant entities and relationships, i.e., an imaginary =
world of=20
nonexistent things, while trying to construct a formal general =
ontology=20
language, like GOL, an otherwise interesting=20
project.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">So it =
looks that=20
your second reading is closer to the point.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'">Regarding you=20
entity classification (or rather object?), maybe it would of use =
at your=20
top to divide objects into two wide categories, material,=20
spatial substances and nonspatial, conceptual objects, and=20
somehow include the term 'representation' as well, =
before=20
'icon'.For more particulars, visit my website: 'Standard =
Ontology for=20
Global Intelligent Cyberspace'.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'">Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Azamat =
Abdoullaev</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">EIS =
Intelligent=20
Systems LTD</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.eis.com.cy">http://www.eis.com.cy</A></SPAN></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt =
arial"><B>From:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary Berg-Cross</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
[email protected] =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">azamat=20
abdoullaev</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March =
22, 2005=20
3:59 PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism =
vs=20
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Azamat,</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">>You are =
raising=20
intriguing questions regarding meaning and processible =
ontologies. I=20
hope my short contribution will make the picture =
clearer.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thanks for the =
kind words.=20
From what you wrote signs we may share some ideas from the =
semiotics=20
realm and connecting this to what you called =
=E2=80=9Contological=20
linguistics=E2=80=9D, - a new phrase for me, but if its =
subject matter is=20
=E2=80=9Contological grammar, syntax, and real valued =
semantics) this sounds=20
like the issues that the development of such things as OWL =
struggle=20
although you might have to spell out what you mean by and real =
valued=20
semantics. </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">AA>In the =
ontological=20
language, real meaning is fixed as the semantic values of =
signs,=20
determined by the entities and relationships in the real=20
world.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Are you talking =
about=20
relating signs to the set-theoretic (logical) aspect of an=20
ontology?<SPAN> </SPAN>That is using signs in the =
ontology=20
construction <SPAN> </SPAN>as a formal logical system =
composed of=20
its objects-primitives, classes, individuals, and properties, =
logical=20
syntax (notation techniques, formation and transformation =
rules), and=20
formal semantics (model theory), such as the OWL is =
doing?</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Another way of =
speaking=20
about this is to <SPAN> </SPAN>imagine using =
=E2=80=9Csign meaning=E2=80=9D to=20
develop a =E2=80=9Cmeaningful=E2=80=9D primitives Entity, =
Thing etc. the kinds of=20
objects with fundamental definitions, axioms and those =
=E2=80=9Creal-world=20
semantics=E2=80=9D you mentioned.<SPAN> =
</SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>This=20
allows a common interpretation by humans and systems of the=20
ontological <SPAN> </SPAN>theory and its truth conditions =
in the=20
world of things, entities, or beings.<SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: blue"> </SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D2>BTW, given=20
that we want to discuss signs and symbols our ontology will =
include=20
concepts like =E2=80=9Ccontentbearing objects: such as in the =
small taxonomic=20
part shown below (just to connect to the linguistic part of=20
ontology)</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: =
-0.25in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>=E2=80=A2<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"><FONT=20
=
size=3D2> =20
</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Entity</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Physical</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Object</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">ContentBearingObject</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Icon</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">SymbolicString</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">LinguisticExpression</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">WrittenLinguisticExpression</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Text</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Sentence</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Phrase</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Word</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
=
</SPAN>Morpheme<SPAN> &nbs=
p;  =
; =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Gary=20
Berg-Cross</P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message----- =
<BR><B>From:</B> azamat=20
abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> =
Mon=20
3/21/2005 4:11 PM <BR><B>To:</B> Gary Berg-Cross =
<BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
[email protected] =
<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:=20
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating=20
Element<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Gary,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are raising intriguing =
questions=20
regarding meaning and processible ontologies. I hope my =
short=20
contribution will make the picture clearer. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To have correct =
understanding of=20
knowledge, meaning ought to be viewed as a meaning =
relation=20
between signs (symbols, words or ideas, thoughts) and things =
in the=20
real world. Any relation by nature is two-sided or=20
bi-directional (from signs to things as well as form things =
to=20
signs). The ontological perspective comes out here as =
most=20
fundamental; for it is mapping the real structures to the =
sign=20
structures (which include conceptual structures). This =
is the=20
subject matter of ontological linguistics (ontological =
grammar,=20
syntax, and real valued semantics), which shouldn't be mixed =
with=20
its complement, linguistic ontology. In the ontological =
language,=20
real meaning is fixed as the semantic values of signs, =
determined=20
by the entities and relationships in the real world. =
Once =20
the sign structures with their associations in a certain =
domain=20
knowledge are sorted out as truly conforming to the =
ontological=20
structures, you can enjoy a machine-processible=20
ontology.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The second issue is =
inherently=20
connected with the successful resolution of the first one.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Materialism-Idealism =
distinction is the=20
result of an innate tendency of the human mind to all sorts =
of=20
dichotomy and duality. This opposite division is a bad =
heritage=20
of classic metaphysics, born by the confused polarity of all =
things=20
as abstract, ideal realities (froms, ideas) and material,=20
physical realities. The practice of modern science is =
inclined=20
to deny as the only reality either ideas or matter, where=20
one exists as subordinate to another. The task of =
general=20
formal ontology is to view the abstract entities =
and the=20
concrete things as two parts of one real world, as two =
distinct=20
domains of reality, the universe of matter and the =
universe of=20
mind, somehow interrelated to each other. And the =
concepts of=20
mind and matter should be synthesized not within materialism =
or=20
idealism but rather within a general ontological theory =
encompassing=20
both parts as distinct levels within an =
all-comprehensive=20
hierarchy of things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>After all, to comprehend =
the general=20
rules, principles, and mechanisms of such relationships =
(ideality-actuality) is =
the challenging undertaking=20
for all who signed up for ontology classes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Azamat =
Abdoullaev</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>EIS Intelligent Systems=20
LTD</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.eis.com.cy">http://www.eis.com.cy</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message =
----- </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt =
arial"><B>From:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary =
Berg-Cross</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Chris =
Lofting</A> ; <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">owner-sta=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March =
21, 2005=20
4:35 PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: =
Idealism vs=20
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating =
Element</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This =
discussion,=20
along with Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language =
terms"=20
=3D=3D>> knowledge ?,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2> has=20
wandered over considerable ground but a=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>question was raised along the way about =
=E2=80=9Chow=20
then we should model =
meaning?.=E2=80=9D</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>One issue=20
was can "knowledge" ("reality" yes, but not "knowledge") =
exist=20
independently of the brain?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>A simple=20
counter question occurred to me, =E2=80=9Cif such =
knowledge can[t be=20
defined how why are trying to build processable ontologies =
?<SPAN> </SPAN>Isn=E2=80=99t that a endeavor to =
capture meaning=20
outside of the brain?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>John Sowa=20
covered this in passing, noting that our computer =
applications=20
include =E2=80=9Cknowledge=E2=80=9D =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>JS>=20
First, knowledge is certainly codifiable in a way =
that<BR>solves a=20
great many problems. Every program ever =
written<BR>does=20
that, and there are an enormous number of =
very<BR>successful=20
ones. But each of those programs solves =
a<BR>particular=20
special case. The problem we face is to<BR>relate =
those=20
special cases by general principles.<BR>JS>And that is =
where=20
the difficulties lie.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>Peirce=E2=80=99s distinction =
between REAL and TRUE=20
may be helpful to some of us in<SPAN> =
</SPAN>ontological=20
community discussion with an aim to building up usable =
knowledge=20
.<SPAN> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Perice <SPAN> </SPAN>"The real, then, is =
that which,=20
sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally =
result=20
in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of =
me=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>and you. Thus, the very origin of the=20
conception of reality shows that this conception =
essentially=20
involves the notion of a community, without definite =
limits, and=20
capable of a definite increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311).=20
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>To elaborate further this is =
now he=20
addressed the distinction between opinions on the true, =
and the=20
real <SPAN> </SPAN>in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear ": =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>"The opinion which is fated to be ultimately =
agreed to by=20
all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the =
object=20
represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I =
would=20
explain reality" (CP 5.407). =E2=80=A6. =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>Peirce continues later with=20
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>"reality is independent, not necessarily of =
thought in=20
general, but only of what you or I or any finite number of =
men may=20
think about it," =E2=80=A6.(that), "though the object of =
the final opinion=20
depends on what that opinion is, yet what that opinion is =
does=20
<U>not</U> depend on what you or I or any man thinks" (CP =
5.408).=20
underlining is mine for emphasis</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>Which brings=20
me, at least, <SPAN> </SPAN>back to John=E2=80=99s =
opinion that he=20
accuracy of any scientific =
hypothesis</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>JS> does=20
not depend<BR>> on who or what =
discovered it=20
or on any methods of thinking,<BR>> =
any=20
techniques of problem solving, or any apparatus=20
that<BR>JS> he, she, or it might have =
used to=20
arrive at the hypothesis.<BR><BR>I can understand this in =
light of=20
Peirce=E2=80=99 efforts to define clear thinking, which we =
need in=20
Ontology building.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>To conclude with yet another Peircian =
quote.<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>Here=E2=80=99s one he used on the path to a =
3<SUP>rd</SUP> way=20
between the realists and =
idealist.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>The philosophical problem is to resolve two =
contradictory=20
claims about the basis of reality: =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<OL style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=3D1>
<LI class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>the=20
principal thesis of realism - there is a reality that =
exists=20
independently of our representations of it=20
or</FONT></FONT></SPAN>=20
<LI class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN> </SPAN>Idealism claim that what we =
perceive=20
as <SPAN> </SPAN>real dependent is upon our =
(usually=20
expressed as mental) representations of =
=E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D.=20
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></LI></OL>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">As </SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt">James Liszka<SPAN =
style=3D"COLOR: black">=20
observed the clash of the two theses is nicely expressed =
in=20
Peirce's "Consequences of the Four Incapacities=20
":</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt =
0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN> </SPAN>"...there is no thing which is =
in-itself=20
in the sense of not being relative to the mind, though =
things=20
which are relative to the mind doubtless are, apart from =
the=20
relation" (5.311). </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Liszkae called this 3<SUP>rd</SUP> way a =
<I>discursive=20
realism</I> to distinguish it from the later effort of=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>Rorty or Foucault, in which there is =
neither a=20
privileged discourse, nor can any representational system =
that can=20
mirror a reality external to such a system =
<SPAN> </SPAN>-=20
what might be called the discursive idealism.<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>Someone may able to drawn up the realism to =
idealism=20
continuum, which seems to be as embedded in our =
discussions as the=20
ontology continuum.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary =
Berg-Cross</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>=
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5351B.ABC10530--