[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-thought

I kept thought but defined it as strictly as I could as the physiological process of mentation.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
             Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:52:39 -0700

      Here we go again.

      Base Schema - thought

      This is a Complex Type element with the abstract attribute. It takes
      the attribute group humlIdentifierAtts. It does not reference other
      elements and is not used by other elements.

      It is defined/desccribed as Human Thought A set of human thought types.

      There is no doubt that this element is needed. However, unlike
      Personality, where we have an established set of typing systems to
      which we can, (thanks be), defer, here we don't and I am rather
      reluctant to stick my toe into these waters to see what the
      temperature is at the moment.

      If conscious is difficult to nail down to tangible concepts, or
      concepts grounded in tangibility or common sense, thought is more so.
      If there is anything in human consciousness more ephemeral, please
      don't tell me about it.

      I'm sorry, but as we near the end of this task, I can't help but set
      the stage for the Secondary Base Schema, where thought types will
      need to be enumerated. So, for those of you who will shortly be
      tasked with building our model of human perception/congnition from
      the elements of the combined Base Schemata, I suggest strongly that
      you give some serious consideration to what constitutes a thought, a
      thought type and how you want to use it as the atom of which human
      thought systems will be built. This is a way of saying, it probably
      aint gonna be me. I'm switching over the Human Physical
      Characteristics Description and focusing most all of my other efforts
      on systematizing emotional expressions and kinesic gestures.

      That doesn't mean I won't contribute my opinions, but about the most
      I can do in that regard will be to massage the classes/properties to
      reflect the now-codified base, and the enlargements as they come
      along, and the biggest of those, which I hope to cheer y'all on
      toward, is perception/cognition.

      Beware, There Be Dragons....

      (Of course, if you check my website, you'll know I happen to love
      Dragons. However, they are fearsome powerful...)

      Ciao,
      Rex
      --

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
             To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>, humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
             Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 09:59:17 -0500

      Is it needed? Let's be sure. There is no
      observable way to indicate it, and anyone
      who has one has to have more to indicate
      it. It has fine potential for infinite
      regression.

      Put another way: what would one use this for?
      Someone point me to a human thought ontology.

      "I just had a thought!"
      "WHERE?"
      "Here!"
      "Show it to me!"
      "I can't!"
      "Can you tell me what it was?"
      "Maybe... oh darn, I forgot!"

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
             To: 'Rex Brooks'
             <rexb@starbourne.com>,"'humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'"<humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
             Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:33:13 -0500

      For the type to work as a type, it has to
      have some inheritable properties. This
      one is so much "eye of the beholder" that
      it is basically a placeholder. If we
      can get good information from others,

      yes. Otherwise, I am for dumping it.

      NOTE: We have not discussed properties
      of the types we have. I had thought at
      some point we would have to take this up
      but I don't think now that it will until
      some secondaries are created.

      One could talk about a "thought process"
      but even that is quite vague. If we don't
      dump it, we should put something like what
      you mention in the description. I don't
      mind coming back and adding to the primary
      as more useful categories are discovered,
      but taking one out later will be painful.
      If a use is found for it, ok, but if it
      gets a lot of divergent uses without significant
      overlap, it will do damage.

      I'd rather do less than more.

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
             To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:41:28 -0500

      Let's step back and investigate the notion
      of *thought process*. This may have some merit,
      but it means (at least to me), that this may
      not belong in the primary.   Note the following
      article and the emphasis on types of thought
      processes:

      http://www.investigativepsych.com/explained.htm

      We have briefly discussed the need for an adjunct
      to model processes that can use our categorical
      types as inputs and outputs. We've not been
      able to tackle it yet.

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:05:47 -0700

      Thanks, Len,

      This makes sense, too. Let's noodle some more before next Wednesday
      and maybe we will hear from some of the others. Thought Processes
      will work from a neurological viewpoint, but I agree that we may not
      want to put that into the Primary. I think we could have an appendix
      that gathers some troublesome conceptual elements like thought and
      says that if a suitable use is suggested that needs an element in the
      primary in order to work, then we can add it later. It is the process
      for adding that also needs some noodling and comparing with other
      standards groups.

      Ciao,
      Rex

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought

             From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
             To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>
             Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:16:09 -0700

      Title: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - thought
      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.

humanmarkup message