Differing ontology contexts

Copied from that long thread that seems to have broken something:

M : 2012-09-29 14:18:35

2012-09-29 14:18:35

snip Ontology's focus is outside the domain of philosophy in the realm of being.

Ah, I see a clue to our disconnect. *That* ontology context, the oldest form of ontology from philosopy, and my epistemology prof would say the TRUE onology.

I am not competent to discuss in that ontology context. I'm barely competent enough in that context to listen and ask questions.

My work is in the more limited (and it has been called bad, bad words by philosophers

) context of ontology as understood by the people who are trying to represent knowledge inside computers. We haven't yet conquered the child's hot, apple, milk example you gave and we about earlier, so we sure don't wrestle with the more difficult questions of being. We talk about things that exist in particular contexts. We don't require that everything exists in every context.

M : 2012-09-29 14:18:35

2012-09-29 14:18:35

snip I have no problem with God. I just think that bringing up such a controversial thing in the middle of a simple discussion of truth is irrelevant. snip

Yeah, that's one of the things I don't get -- why it's so controversial -- so it explains why I blunder into conversations and people get irrate. Sorry. Why does discussing that have to be controversial? Maybe it has to do with human nature and I don't understand that well enough yet?

I was always told not to discuss religion or politics in polite society. I don't understand why earnestly seeking people can't discuss those things as rationally, inquiringly, and politely as they discuss other things.

But if you think it's irrelevant to the discussion, I can go with that.

Comments

Seth says

Actually, even though i did use the word "God", i was not referring to some metaphysical entity who's existence must be taken on Faith and, of course, is controversial. Rather i just labeled that one frame "God's eye view", see Wikipedia, which just refers to a frame of reference which is privileged and omniscient.

Mark de LA says

RE: God - try representing her in a computer. Try defining her.

Seth, so far, hasn't even mentographed what he means by God. Why not take a stab at it Lisa? Not only are the major religions in conflict about God, but masses of adherents won't agree. Why is God pertinent to the discussion of truth? I think you could substitute in the style of Venn the word Universe & thus discard a whole lot of baggage; but maybe not.

Mark de LA says

I am familiar with Cyc a bit when it first came out with ontologies. I am also familiar with Seth's quads representation & of course our CyberMind attempts at some of that. My fascination is with any attempt to get the truth out of the news - futile at best. One model looks like 2339. Anyway I can be found on facebook mostly in the context of arguing politics with Seth.

Lisa Cox says

M 2012-09-29 16:16:40 16224

I haven't looked at Cyc for a few years. That's something I keep meaning to do -- go see what they've done recently. Cybermind as cited by Wikipedia, or one of the business ventures?

It looks like our interests intersect, but fortunately (for the fastblogit engine) or unfortunately, I'm not much interested in news, politics, or arguing (why I don't fit in with the philosophers!) I'm impressed with the folks trying to automate the gathering of knowledge from news articles, though. I'm just more interested in the theory of the internal constructs that might be a better step toward semantic reasoning that is more like what humans can do only inside the computer.

From your facebook page (Love your avatar, by the way), I see your last name and that you studied mathematics at UCLA. Are you related to Seth? If so, it must be a family of deep thinkers!

I may ask you someday to translate some math-speak for me when I get confused.

But like I told Seth in some other post, I don't do much on Facebook.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-09-29 16:39:29 16224

Sounds like the null set as far as humans experience goes. Why use the word God in there? Anyway I will push aside the haggling for the moment as long as nobody starts reasoning or implying some content in that view.

Seth says

M 2012-09-29 16:50:37 16224

seth 2012-09-29 16:39:29 16224

Wow, actually that is my biggest point. That point of view, that frame of reference is the null set as far as human experience goes. So can we call that agreement (2) ?

Mark de LA says

Seth & I are bros.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-09-29 16:59:48 16224

M 2012-09-29 16:50:37 16224

seth 2012-09-29 16:39:29 16224

Wow, actually that is my biggest point. That point of view, that frame of reference is the null set as far as human experience goes. So can we call that agreement (2) ?

Nope! I was trying to tease out your ontology not express mine. I expressed mine way back there when I started talking about zen-ontology.

Seth says

M 2012-09-29 17:05:08 16224

seth 2012-09-29 16:59:48 16224

M 2012-09-29 16:50:37 16224

seth 2012-09-29 16:39:29 16224

Wow, actually that is my biggest point. That point of view, that frame of reference is the null set as far as human experience goes. So can we call that agreement (2) ?

Nope! I was trying to tease out your ontology not express mine. I expressed mine way back there when I started talking about zen-ontology.

see Lisa, this is why i give up on my brother.

Lisa Cox says

M 2012-09-29 17:02:13 16224

Seth & I are bros.

Wow! I'd love to have recordings of your dinner table conversations when you were growing up! It'd make great research for the education community in fostering inquisitive minds.

Lisa Cox says

seth 2012-09-29 17:07:10 16224

snip

see Lisa, this is why i give up on my brother.

Hey, don't knock it!

(fake angry, of course)

I wish my sister or my husband were interested in these kinds of conversations!

(Actually, that's not fair. Hubby, the EE, looked at our posts today and seemed interested. His comment was "I'm impressed, but I only understand 10% of it." He's very modest.)

Lisa Cox says

M 2012-09-29 15:56:07 16224

RE: God - try representing her in a computer. Try defining her.

I could throw out several representations or models of the concept of "God" that could be used in the computer. As Sowa says, all models are wrong, some are useful.

A model can be a very simplistic model that incorporates very little of the known semantics. Or, a model could be a vast simulation with all kinds of attributes, descriptions of abilities and limitations, and moral and ethical values.

Off the top of my head, the most simplistic (ModSim folks would call them dumb models vs. smart models, but those words probably don't mean what you think they mean.

)

Dumb model 1: God: Entity that has all the capabilities of humans plus more and none of the limitations.

Dumb model 2: God: Entity that can see, understand, and interact with Reality and is always right.

Dumb model 3: God: Entity that can impose her/his/its perspective and understanding of reality on humans but doesn't.

Whether a model of God inside a computer is good enough to serve the purposes of the simulation or knowledge base would be defined by the developers of the application.

And I guarantee you every computer model of God would cause a scandal in the news.

Mark de LA says

Lisa Cox 2012-09-29 17:31:33 16224

M 2012-09-29 17:02:13 16224

Seth & I are bros.

Wow! I'd love to have recordings of your dinner table conversations when you were growing up! It'd make great research for the education community in fostering inquisitive minds.

We live in two different states.

Mark de LA says

Notice how much of this has been ignored, mostly by Seth:

(previously on channel Mark): ... Zen ontology holds everything (i.e. all there IS!) as unity & individual human development & capacity determines how much of that we grok over a lifetime & beyond. Truth depends upon language and our ability to express what we grok of existence to ourselves and others. What we hold of existence depends upon our consciousness. There is lots of stuff that I can grok without being able to put it into language. The "I am" experience is one of them. We can dance all around it but I have yet to meet someone who can communicate that to another so that that experience crosses the threshold between them. (in language)

...

No need to resort to God, God Views, nor absolute truth. There is the new wrinkle introduced here & that is consciousness which varies from person to person & sometimes moment to moment & is probably even harder to model in a computer or mentograph.

Lisa Cox says

M 2012-09-29 18:06:41 16224

snip No need to resort to God, God Views, nor absolute truth. There is the new wrinkle introduced here & that is consciousness which varies from person to person & sometimes moment to moment & is probably even harder to model in a computer or mentograph.

I've been background processing some questions about Zen ontology. It'll take some time for me to be able to articulate what I want to know. Maybe next weekend.

Lisa Cox says

M 2012-09-29 17:48:24 16224

snip

We live in two different states.

So do my sister and I. I'm still jealous.

Differing ontology contexts

Tags

Comments

See Also