Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

[Rob Nixon <rnixon@qdyn.com>]

All of the sense associations are "intertwined" in some type of complex
manifold, each sensory input (or group of sensory inputs) can act as a
"decoding" key for activation of a dynamic memory recall.  This "decoding
process" of associations can be viewed as an unfolding of related events that
generates a type of trajectory (that branches) through "information" space  with
something akin to a type of "momentum".  That is why it is often very hard to
change our minds about things.

Pribram's perspective on this is reflected in his description of "The
Holoscape".

I like Poincare's insight that;

"Objects are not fleeting and fugitive appearances, because they are not only
groups of sensations, but groups cemented by a constant bond.  It is this bond
alone, which is the object in itself, and this bond is a relation."

However, I think that his "constant bond" is a little more dynamic then he might
at first believe.

The "senses" and our "perceptions" that arise out of them, functioning in a type
of feedback loop which modulate our experience of "a" world or world(s), and as
such must be viewed as being unified in a real sense with that of the "world"
model that we've created over our life time of thought and experience.  It is
this "reinforcement" of previously experienced relationships that can be viewed
as trajectory (with something akin to momentum) through what we call an
"information/experience space".

Again, just trying to make sure that we aren't boxing ourselves into a corner as
we develop our schema.  Many people often try to break systems down into
isolated pieces, but we run into the danger of missing the emergent properties
that arise out of the interactions that form the "whole".

Rob

paul wrote:

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