RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

When one moves into this definition of Kinesthetic sense, one realizes that
this is largely a brain stem function (or can be seen in this way).  Pribram
clearly sees it in this way in his 1991 book, "Brain and Perception".  But
one also sees that all of the senses are mixed into an experience of world
that is unified.

The typical argument against a schema, where the parts are treated as if
they can be removed from the whole, is that this is a reduction of the
function of the part (hearing, for example) as if hearing can be disembodied
from the living system and the other senses.  To a certain degree it can be,
but this disembodied understanding of hearing becomes abstract and
theoretical - since hearing can only be done by a living system.


The problem is not insignificant in terms of the hoped for uses from a human
mark up standard involving schema and crisp ontology.

Len, you are aware of these class of problems (yes?).  How might you address
the criticism (constructive I hope) that you are seeing from my words?

I do have a proposal for how to address these issues, but this proposal is
not so easy to state quickly and when there is opposition to a non-crisp
non-reductionist viewpoint.

(Oh well, I will state anyway..  One might use a descriptive enumeration of
the qualities of human communication and behavior, while stating that the
"meaning" of the schema are left to an interpretation.  This means that
scope and viewpoint are to be left underconstrainted.  Example:  A sixth
sense might be used to talk about the co-occurrence of an idea that is
patented at the same time by two individuals who do not know each other and
have no common direct friendships.  The notion behind the patent is then
"sensed" by a sixth sense that is tuned to the needs of the market.)

What is not a crisp ontology, but still an ontology?  Well perhaps a
ontology that is formative in the specification having a late binding but
also in that the ontology is understood to have an interpretation by a human
mind after all is said and done (this is the core notion of applied
semiotics - if I understand this correctly.)





-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:54 PM
To: 'Norm Badler'; Rex Brooks
Cc: cognite@zianet.com; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org;
allbeck@graphics.cis.upenn.edu
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel


Let's use that as the working definition for kinesthetic in the schema for
now.

len


From: Norm Badler [mailto:badler@central.cis.upenn.edu]

I'll look at it tonight.  Meanwhile note that (the movie notwithstanding)
the
6th sense is usually considered to be kinesthetic: the understanding of the
internal state of the body -- where one's body parts are relative to each
other and gravity (or other forces), e.g., joint angles, proximities,
orientation.  Touch includes external perceptions such as contact, pressure,
and temperature; kinesthetics can also include internal attributes such as
aches, pain, discomfort, pressure, soreness, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>