[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-thought

Title: 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 <>

            
To: ,


            
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)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks' <>,


            
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)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks'

            
<>,"''"<>

            
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)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks' <>

            
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 <>

            
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <>,'Rex
Brooks' <>

            
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 <>

            
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <>,'Rex
Brooks' <>

            
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.

      I still prefer to simply set it aside
for now and let it be brought up by those who have a specific
application-area use for it, such as in modeling or typing
personalities or organizing models or hierarchies of 'schools' of
'thought' or logic, or science, or mathematics, or history, or
education, or cultural descriptions, etc.

      Also there is no way that I know of to
create 'placeholder' elements in XML without a specific definiton,
saying  in essence, "This thing exists but we can't define
it. or we can't define it now."

      That's as far as I have gotten with it.
I would dearly love to have some help or at least some opinions to
consider on this.