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

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Len,

You said:

*The issue is that all sensory channels are input only. Human senses
are

sight
hearing
touch
taste
smell

We discussed a sixth sense to account for intuition
but for the moment let's not just to avoid the
philosophy debate about that.*

****

see copy of full message below.

****

Well the biological model will not agree that all sensory channels are input
only.

In fact a great deal of the experimental research in the several natural
sciences show that the sensory channels of a human have an "endophysics"
that is NOT caused by input. First, cause can be due to an environmental
affordance (ecological physics - as in J. J. Gibson and the ecological
school of psychology at Univ of Connecticut). Second there is the cause of a
thing on itself, without which quantum mechanics seems to be shuck literally
with no change possible to the state of the world. (A form of Zeno's
paradox.) These types of causes are part of the sensory processing mechanism
in the quantum, bio-chemical, structural levels of the human sensory
systems.  (See also Visual Intelligence, by Donald Hoffman, 1998 , Norton
and Company).  In human memory research, Schacter demonstrates that memory
is distorted and thus that our perception of reality is not always an
accurate reflection of what is experienced (input).  etc etc...

The only way to account for this, i think, is to regard physical reality as
being stratified into organizational levels and to express these
organizational levels relative to location.

This viewpoint is called relative stratified complexity, and we feel that
this viewpoint accounts for more than the Santa Fe Institute paradigm of
Complex Adaptive Systems, in that each organizational level has a
substructural level and an ultra structural level.  (This is reflected in
the conceptually difficult requirement that stratification be both universal
(as expressed in the work of Stanley Salthe, "Development and Evolution"
1996 MIT Press) and relative (perhaps I am the first to try to characterize
this as relative stratified complexity - I am still looking for a best
notation on this).

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/kmbook/Chapter1.htm  (see Process
Compartment Hypothesis)

Emergence is then of a composition of material and causes (some of the
"causes" appears from nowhere - such as free will and self orchestrated
collapse in quantum mechanics as discussed by Penrose and Hameroff - see
Penrose - "Shadows of the Mind" 1994, Cambridge University Press); as well
as into an environment with specific natural law.  {If one is supposed to be
modeling the emergence of terrorism, then one better have these class of
causes whose origin can not be accounted for. Same is true for a buyer's
choice. One can not be Predictive and have **Predictive Analytic
Methodology** or PAM (silly meaningless acronym invented by marketing folks
in Industry) without accounting for hidden causes. }

Such "stratified theory" is reflected in the other scholars' works that I
reference in my book:

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm

as a tri-level architecture for formative ontology (based partially on
Russian quasi axiomatic theory and semiotics.)



This notion "that all sensory channels are input only" is the metaphysics
that we are talking about in ;

http://www.ontologystream.com/admin/KnowledgeNet.htm

where we are proposing a Knowledge Net Consortium - in order to bring
forward a new type of IT that is not in-consistent with what is actually
KNOWN in the natural science.

One can NOT standardize around this concept, BECAUSE this concept does NOT
reflect the natural science on human perception.  (Well one can, but for
what purpose?)

***

An invitation is open, for those interested, to join the bcngroup at
www.bcngroup.org and be part of this new effort.  I am in particular
interested in faculty comment from University of Pennsylvania's Center for
Human Modeling and Simulation.  I would like to know if they are interested
in Human Information interaction science as conceived in:

http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/papers/cA-SPS.htm


But back to Len's comments.   The so called sixth sense is mixed in each of
the five senses in a way that is not reducible to precise quantification.
It may be nice for reductionism to act as if these social mythologies about
human sensory input are the ultimate truth about nature; but nature is just
not designed this way.

I have in my mind to try to contribute to Rex's line of thought regarding a
channel as a indicator that there is an active relationship between two
humans, but one must understand that the best and leading science on
awareness has a lot of non-locality to it.  Perhaps this is important IF we
are going to act as if we are talking about the mark-up of the
characteristics of real human behavior as if human behavior where like a
html document.

I hope that the original thought behind the topic maps distinction between
addressable and non-addressable subjects will re-surface...  and in this way
leads us back to the proper notion of scope and viewpoint.

--

Paul Prueitt, PhD
CEO OntologyStream
703-981-2676

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:27 AM
To: 'Rex Brooks'; cognite@zianet.com;
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel


Channel is very messy.

What might be a good idea is simply to specify channel as having
attributes for in and out.  The problem is that extensibility
below that quickly falls into the applications so we need some
rubric for deciding what belongs in the base.  (BTW:  I don't
disagree with having a set of toolkit secondaries, but let's
be sure first we have weaned the base down.)

The issue is that all sensory channels are input only. Human senses
are

sight
hearing
touch
taste
smell

We discussed a sixth sense to account for intuition
but for the moment let's not just to avoid the
philosophy debate about that.

Each of those channels is clearly input or simply,
receptors.   It is easy to add these as enumerations
via an attribute, but that isn't very useful.  If they
are derived, they get the input/output attribute from
the base, yes?  In every case, they are input.

As soon as we mention output, it gets
quite a bit more complex.   Speech, hand gestures formal),
postures or body language (informal) whistling, singing,
etc. are all kinds of communication, but are they
channels per se?  Channel does not appear to be a particularly
revealing concept.   I'm not suggesting we toss it yet but
I'm trying to come up with a use for it beyond a root
definition and a single attribute that accounts for
directionality.

I don't think we should account for the effects of a message
received via a type of channel into the channel itself.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:06 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); 'Rex Brooks'; cognite@zianet.com;
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel


Scope is a good point. There are factors in any environment which
affect communications, and that is the context question. So
information that is not necessarily part of an intentional
communications session (including unintentional messages), may
nevertheless have an impact. How that information is received by a
human or agent and what that information does to the human or agent
needs to be accounted for. That's the reasoning behind my suggestion
for sensoryChannel, which absorbs any information available.

So, a communicationChannel is the output channel for transmitting signals.

An example where a sensoryChannel was at play while a
communicationChanell was operating, was the chat I had going with
Ranjeeth, while the WTC was collapsing. It had a major effect and we
discussed it while it was happening, but it was not in and of itself
a communication to us, though it could be argued that it was a form
of communication apart from our chat. However, the point is that it
affected us and our communication.

I admit it is not necessary to put these elements into the base
schema since they can be simply derived as abstractions from the
abstract channel element itself. However, while the aim may be to
keep the base as small as we can, we have this entire spectrum of
elements which will be used across a multiplicity of secondary
schemata, and I think it would just be helpful to have a common
element or set of elements for those so that we can avoid the
problems of proliferation of possibly conflicting vocabularies in
secondary schemata that use common elements and needing a secondary
base schema to cover those so that they are consistent across
secondary Human Markup Schemata.

I would like to keep the base as small as we can, but if it leads to
conflicts, it won't be much use.

However, I am quite willing to be led by a consensus on this.

Ciao,
Rex

At 8:10 AM -0500 6/4/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>If the scope of HumanML is human communication, sensoryChannel
>describes the means of a human receiving information.
>
>What is the purpose of communicationChannel?  What I wish to
>avoid is opening a very very very large abstraction that
>subsumes all manner of communication.
>
>Channel may be sufficient.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
>
>a sensoryChannel would be a conduit for input information into a
>human object, i.e. an instantiation of the human element
>
>a communicationChannel would be a conduit of message-bearing energy
>
>a signal would be message-bearing energy (which we will still revisit
>in order when we get there, realising that it may be further refined
>by that time.)
>
>While it would be possible to derive these from channel as it is
>written in the straw man, I think it would necessitate a third level
>of abstraction as a secondary base schema, so to speak, so what I
>propose is that we take the time to define some basic, if derived,
>elements to avoid a secondary base schema just for these top level
>derivations. I do think that these distinctions will turn up for many
>of our singular base elements.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>