Heidegger's regional ontology of Da-sein (being-there).

Heidegger

 <daFonseca> in page 73,74 and 75 (German edition) you find what I have talked about: when the Hammer break the Net appears. You can take this "break" as a Nothingness destroying the Net. Or better, the lack in the net is the nothingness. Nothingness is not something, but the lack of something. (make from nothing something is a naïve mistake in ontology).

Heidegger understands ontology to be self-adjudicating anthropological categories. This is what he means when he says that fundamental ontology is the “regional ontology of Dasein.” In the remainder of this post I’m going to differentiate Heidegger’s ontology from all previous “world/vulgar” ontologies by describing exactly what such a self-adjudication means.

 World/vulgar ontology is the cataloguing of the furniture of the universe. We’re doing world/vulgar ontology when we look around and on the basis of what we encounter here or there attempt to give an account of what, generally, there is. Fundamental ontology is different; it investigates the significance of ontological categorization itself. 

 Imagine magical substances called understanding and consciousness .. Shank teaches us how to bottle little bits of it.. The best we tend  to do is spray it out of cans of compressed air.   300 years ago, if someone tried to explain that electricity .. and yet only "lightning" is understood ...  imagine bringing the skills of engineering with pre made components but yet you know lightning exists and you know how to draw a schematic of a radio transmitter and receiver ,  how perilous the building electronic circuits no knowledge of how to manufacture a capacitor or a coil the step down transformer is .. or how the diode is made in the factory ..  Y  by  like we have today based on only an understanding of lightning..  we realize the world that electricity could summon using components?   world that AI based self-narration/understanding could summon?

trimmed because..... ???? idk where it goes 


  •Heidegger seeks to retrieve the question of being and ontology. “It is said that ‘being’ is the most universal and emptiest concept.  As such it resists every attempt at definition.” (Heidegger, 2)

 •What constitutes Da-sein may be split up between the ontological/subjective and the ontic/objective.

  •One must ask the right question in order to produce the right answer.  Heidegger believes that the best place to start is to enquire about the nature of ourselves, or what he calls Da-sein (being-the-there or being-there).

 •“The being that has the character of Da-sein has a relation to the question of being itself.” (Heidegger, 8)

 •Thus, to enquire about being is to enquire about the nature and ontology of Da-sein.  Da-sein is a privileged kind of being precisely because Da-sein is concerned about its being in a way that a rock, tree, or animal is not.

  •The ontological is what is necessary, presupposed, and gives rise to the possibilities of enquiry.

 •Heidegger seeks to retrieve the question of being and ontology. “It is said that ‘being’ is the most universal and emptiest concept.  As such it resists every attempt at definition.” (Heidegger, 2)

 •One must ask the right question in order to produce the right answer.  Heidegger believes that the best place to start is to enquire about the nature of ourselves, or what he calls Da-sein (being-the-there or being-there).

 •“The being that has the character of Da-sein has a relation to the question of being itself.” (Heidegger, 8)

 •Thus, to enquire about being is to enquire about the nature and ontology of Da-sein.  Da-sein is a privileged kind of being precisely because Da-sein is concerned about its being in a way that a rock, tree, or animal is not.

 •The ontological is what is necessary, presupposed, and gives rise to the possibilities of enquiry.

  Harald Atmanspacher writes extensively about the philosophy of science, especially as it relates to Chaos theory, determinism, causation, and stochasticity. He explains that "ontic states describe all properties of a physical system exhaustively. ('Exhaustive' in this context means that an ontic state is 'precisely the way it is,' without any reference to epistemic knowledge or ignorance.)" 

In an earlier paper, Atmanspacher portrays the difference between an epistemic perspective of a system, and an ontic perspective:

 "Philosophical discourse traditionally distinguishes between ontology and epistemology and generally enforces this distinction by keeping the two subject areas separated. However, the relationship between the two areas is of central importance to physics and philosophy of physics. For instance, many measurement-related problems force us to consider both our knowledge of the states and observables of a system (epistemic perspective) and its states and observables, independent of such knowledge (ontic perspective). This applies to quantum systems in particular. "

Q6 It is possible to formulate the dialogue (not all verbal) using CD Theory/Script Theory?

Yes, Conceptual Dependency Theory doesn't actually require a verbal language, it's possible to form a dialog without using anything else. Script Theory can represent anything including a narrative

Conceptualization is defined as an act or doing something to an object in a direction.

All conceptualizations can be analyzed in terms of a small number of primitive acts.

  (PTRANS/MBUILD/MTRANS/INGEST/GRASP/MOVE/SPEAK etc)

All memory is episodic and organized in terms of scripts made up of output #2 (only the elements/simplest description of the narrative)

Scripts allow individuals to make inferences and hence understand verbal/written discourse.

Higher Level expectations are created by goals and plans.

 Instead of using the normal  conceptual dependency primitives  we  adopt a few extra built up around the MTRANS sub- ontology this is because  we like to be representing  common practices ( praxis)  of "turn taking" dialogue ( not every action is…..XXXXxxXX…..)  and thus our moves  must  make us capable of satisfying our intent by producing side effects in the conversational realm.

 example: "If our intent was to deliver an expository on the merits of drinking water,  we'd need data structures like..."

 The requirement is this can be encoded as  moves into a formal discourse representation logic that we can use a planner with.

References

Tags: LOGICMOO
     
Copywrite © 2020 LOGICMOO (Unless otherwise credited in page)