ontum = a unit of ontology Using a PCT lens, each of my perceptual control systems is responsible for perceiving & regulating exactly one ontum, and the set of all such onta in my system *is* my ontology.
9 tweets · February 2021 · 63 likes · 1 retweets · read on Twitter
ontum = a unit of ontology Using a PCT lens, each of my perceptual control systems is responsible for perceiving & regulating exactly one ontum, and the set of all such onta in my system *is* my ontology.
Examples: • individual sense cells have their ontum baked in, eg a cone cell detects certain light wavelengths • one level up there's an ontum of PINK 🌸= {blue, red, no green} • a few levels further is an ontum of PINK as a *concept* with associations to gender or panther
Motor examples: • lowest level: an individual muscle cell tensing • 2nd level: the overall position of a finger • 3rd level: the hand in the shape of a G chord on this particular instrument (much higher is the concept of G across 🎸🎹) • 4th level: transition between G & C
More examples: • ontum: air with a skunky smell • ontum: "skunk" as a species • ontum: "cannabis sativa" as a species • ontum: "stoned/high" as a state of mind someone could have • ontum: "bloodshot eyes" as a perception • ontum: "how high am I?" • ontum: THC
Yet more examples (these are just pointers; diff between ppl) • ontum: money • ontum: my money • ontum: my income • ontum: rich • ontum: "the rich" • ontum: value • ontum: GDP • ontum: the thing GDP is a proxy for • ontum: capitalism • ontum: $GME • ontum: billionaire
This might also be exactly what @DavidDeutschOxf is pointing at with his definition of "real".
For a given ontum, you can set the reference level to something else, eg "I should have more money", but it's hard to deliberately create/change/destroy a given ontum, at least at very high and very low levels. In between, not hard to eg find out about a new food you like.
Or in more natural language, with fewer examples but more details about learning etc, see @QiaochuYuan's thread here. (both threads came from a conversation he and I had Feb 18th—not a coincidence they showed up the same week)
Wanting to add a small correction: one's ontology includes not just every individual ontum, but also any combination of other onta. (the power set, not the set, although arguably in some sense we're talking linear combinations not just "x & y")