RE: [topicmaps-comment] RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-artifact

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Rex,

Before (or as) I address some thoughts about primary schema (and more fully
speak to Claude's very clear remarks) and the formation of ontology, I wish
to ask if you can search your soul for an answer to what about the
biological models of intelligence/perception/cognition/being is troublesome
for most computer scientists.  (Other than some of them are just very wrong,
and poor science.)  Is it merely a problem of sorting out the proper science
from the mythology (such as humans are the only animal that has a cognitive
process)?

I am sure I do not fully understand why there is such bad blood between the
AI camp, for example, and the notion to biology is relevant.

I do know that the biological model is not well represented as a model that
computer science can address (yet).... but what if a new model was advanced
that was biologically more relevant and that was implementable as computer
science.  I am of course refering to my tri-level architecture work, but
only as a summative work that hopes to bring the cognitive neuroscience of
Pribram, Shaw and others into the e-commerce and intelligence technologies.


Your thoughts?


Anyone else?