RE: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....

[David Dodds <drdodds42@hotmail.com>]

To me a vacuum is the absence of matter. Blackness (total darkeness) is the 
absence of illumination. Cold is the absence of heat.

To me saying that a vaccuum has a physical existance, as though it is a 
physical extent thing is a non-sequiter. It is a nonsequiter to me to say 
that blackness is a thing and exists. The notions of vacuum and blackness 
are the ABSENCE of something exisiting. It is a metaphorical projection to 
say that an absence is some/an existing thing.

"Seeing" a shadow is the mind's way of re-presenting the absence of 
illumination/qualia. Feeling coldness is the result of the mind detecting 
the absence of heat. Heat ("atomic motion") is (said to be) a real thing. 
The absence of motion, zero degrees Kelvin, means that there is absolute 
stillness. It is thought that matter would "come apart"/disintegrate under 
such conditions.

The distance between two points is a perception, it is a mentalism. In my 
purvue it is not a real thing. Distance is not a real thing, it is a 
perception conjured by a mental/agency.

Often, in human perception and thought, our ideas have co-extant with them, 
linguification. That is, language based mentalisms / perceptions / ""words 
and phrases"" . When we look at the blue sky we experience blue but it 
wouldnt be unusual to also in some way experience the mental-presence of the 
word "blue". No i dont mean you see the word blue in letters in your head 
nor do I mean you hear the word blue spoken in your mind's ear. What Im 
saying is that often there is an accompanyment of linguification (the 
language item blue in this case) which accompanies the sensation or 
experience of the qualia-blue as we look at the sky. The blueness is in your 
head, it is not in the sky, the word blue is a representation of concept in 
your head, it is not a real thing itself. However, this concommitant 
occurrence of linguification offen is "felt" / perceived as real, what it 
really is is that these linguification events/processes produces a 
reification ("making real") of that which they seem/feel to be associated 
with. Furthermore, since the mind associates things together which occur 
within about 50 to 100 milliseconds of each other the _sense_ of any 
linguification {language based generation] providing meaning / reification 
of that which occurs in the critical time frame (50ms) [in this case blue 
qualia in the mind's "experience"] is given by the [critical and necessary] 
temporal proximity.  The sense or feeling of asociation between experiencing 
blue qualia and experiencing the linguistic concept "blue" is given by the  
window of temporal (effective, conceptual) "simultaneity". Readers 
interested in this sort of thing are invited to read the research in 
psychological time , especially about "moment". The MACY conferences would 
be a good place to start, in this regard. (Google can give some  handles to 
material).


David Dodds



>From: "Seidl, Andy" <Andy.Seidl@Starbase.com>
>To: 'David Dodds' <drdodds42@hotmail.com>, 
>topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....
>Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:51:41 -0700
>
>| Certainly it makes sense to say that physical things exist independently
>of
>| human mind / perception / cognition but they are physical things not
>| insubstantial / noncorporeal mentalisations/thoughts.
>
>Question:  Do vacuums (in space, not the Hoover variety) exist?  Or the
>distance between two point?
>
>I suspect they do--if anything does independently of a mind--yet they are
>not physical things (are they?)  These are really more like notions, e.g.,
>the notion that there exists no physical things in a volume of space is
>we refer to as a "vacuum".
>
>The question of existence impendent of any mind is a tricky, and most
>entertaining idea.  Over the years, I've come to the non-committal
>opinion that either everything or nothing exists independently of a
>mind.  When it comes right down to it, we can never know (in our minds)
>what exists independently of a mind because our point of view is from
>within a mind.
>
>Unless... we can discover a physical cause of subjective awareness and
>understand how to create such awareness "artificially".  Then, we *might*
>be able to speak with some authority on the role Mind plays in existence.
>Until such time, I suspect at least this aspect of The Truth is
>inaccessible to us.
>
>  -- fas
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Dodds [mailto:drdodds42@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 01:22 PM
>To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: drdodds42@hotmail.com
>Subject: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....
>
>
>In my conceptualization system notions/ideas/concepts occur "within" a
>mental-agency, a "mind". Notions are the content of the mind process.
>Notions themselves cannot exist other than in a mind/mental agency.
>
>Transformations/"conveyances"/re-presentations !  of notions can
>"externalize" a rendition of such notion(s) but the notion(s) themselvs
>cannot be 'beamed out' in their completeness like mental telepathy.
>
>Certainly it makes sense to say that physical things exist independently of
>human mind / perception / cognition but they are physical things not
>insubstantial / noncorporeal mentalisations/thoughts.
>
>Thomas, would you please discuss what it is that you perceive is gained by
>having a universe where concepts/ideas/noncorporea can exist outside of a
>mental agency/mind? To me this idea is reminescent of Pantheism, or a kind
>of mentwal phlogiston or ether. I dont understand what notions outside of
>minds could be used for.
>
>David Dodds
>
>
>
> >From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
> >To: topicmaps-comments <topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....
> >Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:01:38 -0400
> >
> >[Enrico Silterra]
> >
> > >
> > > "Notions have existence regardless of whether any
> > > information conveys them."
> > >
> > >
> > > Reading Steve, and Michel's presentation from
> > > the Semantic Web Workshop,
> > > I am worried that we are venturing into some sort
> > > of Platonic mode of thought here -- My HO is that the
> > > notion that  notions such as "unicorns" exist whether
> > > or not anyone thinks them is wrong
> > > What does "information conveys" mean?
> > > What are the logical operations that can be performed
> > > on topic maps?  Is the topic map notation equivalent
> > > to the propositional calculus? If it isn't, how can we
> > > use tm's to reason with? If it is, what does it add?
> > >
> >
> >I decided some time ago to finesse this philosophical question by 
>deciding
> >to ACT AS IF notions exist as virtual entities at least for some 
>duration.
> >It is clearly the case that everyone acts as if they believe this, at 
>lest
> >sometimes.  Whether it is "really" true, or whether all concepts are 
>really
> >only encoded transiently in complex brain structures and do not otherwise
> >exist is a fascinating question which is currently beyond my powers to
> >prove.  That's why I say "act as if...".
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Tom P
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp