RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema

Having read Len's reference, and considering the number and kinds of fallacious thought processes it describes, I am loathe to do much in this context.

The way we define a concept or element can, but not always does, restrict or enable the way it can be used. We could accidentally enable the very kinds problems associated with various fallacies of logical investigation or biased scientific methodologies by setting our own a priori definition of something as fundamental but ineffable as 'thought,' let alone thought-types, even though we live in a poorly defined soup of such mental/cultural constructs. Worse, we open ourselves up to criticisms that could invalidate our entire effort, and we face that regardless. It is more a question of whether we invite such criticism or make such criticism easy

So, to defer or not to defer?

I am proposing that if we include thought at all, and we need to vote on this, that we clearly define it as 'a human mental process' or 'the mental process of human consciousness' so that it is defined only as a neurological phenomenon that occurs in biological humans. Our scope is human communication, after all, so this is a fairly handy way to include it without setting ourselves up for a fall.

This side steps the issue of types altogether, but would, and this is a seriously liability as well, then require some compound term built with thought in this definition to refer to any specific verbal or non-verbal structured mental activity. We tend to think of thought as occuring verbally and then the question of mathematics as language arises, but it (thought) is quite easily engaged in without recourse to either words or numbers or mathematical concepts, so I don't think we can limit it that way.

I still prefer to simply set it aside for now and let it be brought up by those who have a specific application-area use for it, such as in modeling or typing personalities or organizing models or hierarchies of 'schools' of 'thought' or logic, or science, or mathematics, or history, or education, or cultural descriptions, etc. Also there is no way that I know of to create 'placeholder' elements in XML without a specific definiton, saying in essence, "This thing exists but we can't define it. or we can't define it now."

That's as far as I have gotten with it. I would dearly love to have some help or at least some opinions to consider on this.

humanmarkup-comment message