Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>]

People forget kinesthetics ( body position ) all the time.   Even though some
people believe it to be controversial, the Muscle Spindles and Golgi tendon
organs help provide the sensing mechanism for body position.  That is why when
your arm goes to sleep you can't tell where it is....

So add kinesthetics to the list of senses...

Rob

paul wrote:

> Len,
>
> You said:
>
> *The issue is that all sensory channels are input only. Human senses
> are
>
> sight
> hearing
> touch
> taste
> smell
>
> We discussed a sixth sense to account for intuition
> but for the moment let's not just to avoid the
> philosophy debate about that.*
>
> ****
>
> see copy of full message below.
>
> ****
>
> Well the biological model will not agree that all sensory channels are input
> only.
>
> In fact a great deal of the experimental research in the several natural
> sciences show that the sensory channels of a human have an "endophysics"
> that is NOT caused by input. First, cause can be due to an environmental
> affordance (ecological physics - as in J. J. Gibson and the ecological
> school of psychology at Univ of Connecticut). Second there is the cause of a
> thing on itself, without which quantum mechanics seems to be shuck literally
> with no change possible to the state of the world. (A form of Zeno's
> paradox.) These types of causes are part of the sensory processing mechanism
> in the quantum, bio-chemical, structural levels of the human sensory
> systems.  (See also Visual Intelligence, by Donald Hoffman, 1998 , Norton
> and Company).  In human memory research, Schacter demonstrates that memory
> is distorted and thus that our perception of reality is not always an
> accurate reflection of what is experienced (input).  etc etc...
>
> The only way to account for this, i think, is to regard physical reality as
> being stratified into organizational levels and to express these
> organizational levels relative to location.
>
> This viewpoint is called relative stratified complexity, and we feel that
> this viewpoint accounts for more than the Santa Fe Institute paradigm of
> Complex Adaptive Systems, in that each organizational level has a
> substructural level and an ultra structural level.  (This is reflected in
> the conceptually difficult requirement that stratification be both universal
> (as expressed in the work of Stanley Salthe, "Development and Evolution"
> 1996 MIT Press) and relative (perhaps I am the first to try to characterize
> this as relative stratified complexity - I am still looking for a best
> notation on this).
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm  (see Process
> Compartment Hypothesis)
>
> Emergence is then of a composition of material and causes (some of the
> "causes" appears from nowhere - such as free will and self orchestrated
> collapse in quantum mechanics as discussed by Penrose and Hameroff - see
> Penrose - "Shadows of the Mind" 1994, Cambridge University Press); as well
> as into an environment with specific natural law.  {If one is supposed to be
> modeling the emergence of terrorism, then one better have these class of
> causes whose origin can not be accounted for. Same is true for a buyer's
> choice. One can not be Predictive and have **Predictive Analytic
> Methodology** or PAM (silly meaningless acronym invented by marketing folks
> in Industry) without accounting for hidden causes. }
>
> Such "stratified theory" is reflected in the other scholars' works that I
> reference in my book:
>
> http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm
>
> as a tri-level architecture for formative ontology (based partially on
> Russian quasi axiomatic theory and semiotics.)
>
> This notion "that all sensory channels are input only" is the metaphysics
> that we are talking about in ;
>
> http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KnowledgeNet.htm
>
> where we are proposing a Knowledge Net Consortium - in order to bring
> forward a new type of IT that is not in-consistent with what is actually
> KNOWN in the natural science.
>
> One can NOT standardize around this concept, BECAUSE this concept does NOT
> reflect the natural science on human perception.  (Well one can, but for
> what purpose?)
>
> ***
>
> An invitation is open, for those interested, to join the bcngroup at
> www.bcngroup.org and be part of this new effort.  I am in particular
> interested in faculty comment from University of Pennsylvania's Center for
> Human Modeling and Simulation.  I would like to know if they are interested
> in Human Information interaction science as conceived in:
>
> http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm
>
> But back to Len's comments.   The so called sixth sense is mixed in each of
> the five senses in a way that is not reducible to precise quantification.
> It may be nice for reductionism to act as if these social mythologies about
> human sensory input are the ultimate truth about nature; but nature is just
> not designed this way.
>
> I have in my mind to try to contribute to Rex's line of thought regarding a
> channel as a indicator that there is an active relationship between two
> humans, but one must understand that the best and leading science on
> awareness has a lot of non-locality to it.  Perhaps this is important IF we
> are going to act as if we are talking about the mark-up of the
> characteristics of real human behavior as if human behavior where like a
> html document.
>
> I hope that the original thought behind the topic maps distinction between
> addressable and non-addressable subjects will re-surface...  and in this way
> leads us back to the proper notion of scope and viewpoint.
>
> --
>
> Paul Prueitt, PhD
> CEO OntologyStream
> 703-981-2676
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:27 AM
> To: 'Rex Brooks'; cognite@zianet.com;
> humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
>
> Channel is very messy.
>
> What might be a good idea is simply to specify channel as having
> attributes for in and out.  The problem is that extensibility
> below that quickly falls into the applications so we need some
> rubric for deciding what belongs in the base.  (BTW:  I don't
> disagree with having a set of toolkit secondaries, but let's
> be sure first we have weaned the base down.)
>
> The issue is that all sensory channels are input only. Human senses
> are
>
> sight
> hearing
> touch
> taste
> smell
>
> We discussed a sixth sense to account for intuition
> but for the moment let's not just to avoid the
> philosophy debate about that.
>
> Each of those channels is clearly input or simply,
> receptors.   It is easy to add these as enumerations
> via an attribute, but that isn't very useful.  If they
> are derived, they get the input/output attribute from
> the base, yes?  In every case, they are input.
>
> As soon as we mention output, it gets
> quite a bit more complex.   Speech, hand gestures formal),
> postures or body language (informal) whistling, singing,
> etc. are all kinds of communication, but are they
> channels per se?  Channel does not appear to be a particularly
> revealing concept.   I'm not suggesting we toss it yet but
> I'm trying to come up with a use for it beyond a root
> definition and a single attribute that accounts for
> directionality.
>
> I don't think we should account for the effects of a message
> received via a type of channel into the channel itself.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Rex Brooks'; cognite@zianet.com;
> humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel
>
> Scope is a good point. There are factors in any environment which
> affect communications, and that is the context question. So
> information that is not necessarily part of an intentional
> communications session (including unintentional messages), may
> nevertheless have an impact. How that information is received by a
> human or agent and what that information does to the human or agent
> needs to be accounted for. That's the reasoning behind my suggestion
> for sensoryChannel, which absorbs any information available.
>
> So, a communicationChannel is the output channel for transmitting signals.
>
> An example where a sensoryChannel was at play while a
> communicationChanell was operating, was the chat I had going with
> Ranjeeth, while the WTC was collapsing. It had a major effect and we
> discussed it while it was happening, but it was not in and of itself
> a communication to us, though it could be argued that it was a form
> of communication apart from our chat. However, the point is that it
> affected us and our communication.
>
> I admit it is not necessary to put these elements into the base
> schema since they can be simply derived as abstractions from the
> abstract channel element itself. However, while the aim may be to
> keep the base as small as we can, we have this entire spectrum of
> elements which will be used across a multiplicity of secondary
> schemata, and I think it would just be helpful to have a common
> element or set of elements for those so that we can avoid the
> problems of proliferation of possibly conflicting vocabularies in
> secondary schemata that use common elements and needing a secondary
> base schema to cover those so that they are consistent across
> secondary Human Markup Schemata.
>
> I would like to keep the base as small as we can, but if it leads to
> conflicts, it won't be much use.
>
> However, I am quite willing to be led by a consensus on this.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 8:10 AM -0500 6/4/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >If the scope of HumanML is human communication, sensoryChannel
> >describes the means of a human receiving information.
> >
> >What is the purpose of communicationChannel?  What I wish to
> >avoid is opening a very very very large abstraction that
> >subsumes all manner of communication.
> >
> >Channel may be sufficient.
> >
> >len
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> >
> >
> >a sensoryChannel would be a conduit for input information into a
> >human object, i.e. an instantiation of the human element
> >
> >a communicationChannel would be a conduit of message-bearing energy
> >
> >a signal would be message-bearing energy (which we will still revisit
> >in order when we get there, realising that it may be further refined
> >by that time.)
> >
> >While it would be possible to derive these from channel as it is
> >written in the straw man, I think it would necessitate a third level
> >of abstraction as a secondary base schema, so to speak, so what I
> >propose is that we take the time to define some basic, if derived,
> >elements to avoid a secondary base schema just for these top level
> >derivations. I do think that these distinctions will turn up for many
> >of our singular base elements.
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>