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

[David Dodds <drdodds42@hotmail.com>]

Hi Steve

I have no quarrel or diagreement with what you say (below). There is a 
difference in what you and I are saying, we are not saying the same thing. I 
am not saying you are wrong.

Your text (below) provided me with enough information so that I could infer 
a context for a number of things including cricially HOW you USE the word 
"notion"  and the word "idea". I learned in philosophy of language at 
university that words mean how you use them. One is free to legitimately 
say, I define X to mean Y. such as I define big to be greater than 5. 
Because there is a definition provided then any reader/consumer of your 
words then can reference the definition(s) you have declared and thereby 
accurately understand your menaing, which is indicated by virtue of your use 
(of words).  The use provideds the context, which in turn can be used to 
determine which definition was appealed to to derive the meaning of your 
statement.  In ordinary speech there are ciluturaly and domain based TACIT 
definitions for words. If one doesnt specifically call to attention that a 
nonstandard / nondefualt USE , tat is definition is being employed then the 
receiver of the communication can assume that the standard one is being 
used.

I use the word "notion" a little differently than you. Your use allows for  
reference to the word "notion" as thoughthey are "things" external to a 
mind. You seem to be using ideas in a similar way. Now that I understand the 
basis of your definition of "notion" and "idea" I can see how you can 
reasonably say that notions/ideas can be/exist in documents and otherwise 
(be) outside a mind which conceives/perceives them. My use of "notion" is 
that it is a mental phenomenon experienced in a mind, and that a 
re-presentation of it can be conveyed elsewhere, such as in a document, in 
speech over a telephone and via a topic map.
There are 2 important things there: it is a *re-presentation* of the notion 
that is conveyed, not the notion itself. The re-presentation is less rich 
than the notion itself. I am not splitting hairs here. What Im saying is 
that the artifact of the procesing of conveying the notion externally 
(external to hte mind) reduces its 
quality/completeness/richness/multidimensionality. thats because that is 
exactly what conveyance does. All conveyances, such as speaking, or writing 
are lossy transformations (of the original notion/idea/concept).
It is a colloquial use (in my book) of the term notion, when one says that 
notions are in documents, in conversations, etc. What is really ther ea re 
transformations/conveyances/externalizations of the notions/ideas. Example. 
If I look into the sky and say I see a blue sky, the blue in the sentence 
does not have nor convey the richness of the experince of the visual qualia 
that my mind experiences from the sight of the sky. In the colloquial use of 
notion, it is legitimate to say that The sky is blue, is a notion, and that 
it can be written and spoken. In my book The sky is blue is a linguification 
of a notion, not a notion itself.

In the end I dont think it matters whether we look at things as you have 
specificed (colloquially) or I have specified (transformationally)
what really matters is that we agree on how to construct topic maps, which 
it seems to me can capture both of our conceptual views.

I am interested in the potential problems with identifying the subject of a 
topic ina wya that everybody can understand what the CHARACTERIZATION of the 
subject is.    If you and I talk about extinct dodo bird eggs and design a 
subject indicator "extinct dodo bird eggs", how does someone who speaks only 
Swahili or Irdu supposedly to know , oh yea, its a topic about the specifica 
subject "extinct dodo bird eggs". I mention a native speaker of Irdu or 
Swahili because in a sense that where the standard computer is coming from. 
IT DONT SPEAK ENGLISH, and the string "extinct dodo bird eggs" has no more 
meaning that does 1234-6789-43-55-49 as a subject indicator for the same 
thing. Sure the computer can compare strings and number-symbols and "look 
for" ones that are indentical, but is that all we awant to mean by 
understanding the subject indicator?!


Another way of me stating my quandry is that I dont see how we topic mappers 
are avoiding the infinite regression of homunculi / "understanders" in our 
means to specifying/conveying subject indicator.

cheers
David Dodds



>From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>
>To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>CC: topicmapmail@infoloom.com
>Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] Notions have existence .....
>Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:03:14 -0500
>
> > [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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>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