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

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

> [David Dodds]

> > 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.

In order for a topic map to be valid, its creator must
have had exactly one changeless and unique notion *in
mind* as the thing for which each topic in the topic
map is a surrogate.

If we define "valid" in terms of the preceding
sentence, then it's very true that no computer -- and
no human being (outside of the mythical PsiCorps of
Babylon 5) -- can possibly determine whether a given
topic map is "valid".  Nonetheless, the fact remains
that there is no point in creating or using a topic map
unless its creator has exactly one notion in mind as
the subject of each topic.  Topic maps simply aren't
meaningful unless each topic has exactly one changeless
and eternal subject.  When we choose to use a given
topic map, we demonstrate our faith that its creator
consistently complied with this fundamental discipline.

This brings us back to an earlier point in this
conversation.  The "creator" of a topic map need not be
a single individual.  It could be a group of
individuals.  Still, no matter whether the creator is
an individual or a group of individuals, the creator
must have exactly one notion "in mind" as the subject
of each topic.  Therefore, when topic maps are authored
and maintained collaboratively, highly accurate
groupthink is required.  This is why I've been arguing
that the art of the subject indicator is a demanding
one, and skill in this art is required in order to
sustain collaborative topic map authoring activities.
Also, serious attention to subject indicators, once
they have been created and/or selected, is required of
every collaborator.

Mental telepathy is not required in order to produce
topic maps collaboratively (although it would certainly
help a lot).  Skill, attention, and discipline can do
the trick.  Conceptual tools (Sowa's work springs to
mind), the accumulated experience of the Library
Science community, and many other things can and should
be exploited.  The art of the subject indicator is a
big field of endeavor.

[David Dodds:]
> 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.

Hmmm.  I've always thought that the purpose of any
document is to be an encapsulation of one or more
notions.  If person A writes a document, and dies, the
notions that were in A's mind aren't in his mind any
more.  Even so, when person B read's A's document,
those notions are once again in a mind -- this time, B's
mind.  Now, between the death of A, and B's reading of
A's document, where were the notions?  I think they were
in a document -- and outside of any mind.  Unless we
think of documents as having minds -- an idea I find
unacceptable.

So, I think one can reasonably conclude that notions
have at least *potential* existence outside of any
mind.  If you'll accept that, David, then I don't think
we have anything to argue about.  

Unless you want to argue that notions whose existence
is only potential do not have identity.  Topic maps
exploit the Platonic notion that all notions are
unique.  If you don't believe that all notions are
unique, then you can't possibly believe in Topic Maps,
because Topic Maps depend on the uniqueness of notions
as the means whereby everything that is relevant to any
given notion can be attached to that notion.  If each
notion is not unique, then a given notion can't
reliably serve as the connection hub for everything
that is relevant to it.  Some of the relevant stuff
might be attached to one or more of its twin brethren,
and there would be no basis for merging all the twin
notions into a single notion.  Maybe I've been
brainwashed by 2,400 years of thinking based on Plato's
ideas.  On the other hand, maybe Plato and I have
simply had the same unshakeable intuition that every
idea is necessarily unique, has identity, and exists
regardless of whether anybody happens to be thinking
about it at any given moment.  I think it would be
awfully hard to explain the phenomenon of language --
information interchange -- in the absence of such an
intuition.


-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA