Ontology

[John Kineman <***>]

In an earlier exchange some confusion emerged as a result of my use of
the word "ontology." I want to clarify my use of the term. First let me
say that there can be many definitions of what ontology means, and so
I'm just clarifying the one I was using without warning anyone.

The word has unfortunate baggage in philosophy and theology; but it also
has a modern practical use in the information sciences that is
increasing in popularity and will eventually be in the dictionary. I use
it in a similar practical sense, not the traditional definition that has
it as a part of  metaphysics or concepts of God. Nor was I using it
strictly in the evolutionary sense regarding phylogeny as meaning a
remote, historical ontology.

By ontology, I mean "origin of novelty." If you go to the URL
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html   you will see
the following answer to the question "What is an Ontology?" from an AI
perspective:  "Short answer: An ontology is a specification of a
conceptualization." Elsewhere you can see it defined as the origin of a
system of definitions, or "schema." So, it is something new being
formalized, and perhaps it can refer to something new being formalized
and realized, although the realization would be the result of the
ontology, not the ontology itself.

Hopefully this is putting it onto familiar ground, i.e., realization of
functions. So, what I think of when I say ontology, is the realization
of a functional model, as in the modeling relation. I see such
realization as an origin of novelty entering the material world. This is
entirely contrary to the traditional mechanical view that has everything
after the big bang being a predictable result of prior conditions (in
theory) where there are nothing truely novel, i.e, no ontologies in it
at all. It is because of this very limited ontology that the pejorative
baggage has developed. Given the physical assumption above, the only
"ontologies" would be pre-universal metaphysics, the stuff of religion
and sloppy thinking. But the essence of my usage, and I believe of RR's
view, is that novelty enters the real world all the time, through the
relationship between function and realization.

So, burried in my earlier comments was the assumption (presumption?)
that some novel realization from a functional relationship is involved
in living functions, such as metabolism and repair. In other words, that
metabolism and repair are guided by an internal functional models, just
like behavior is - and this is associated with being alive.

In my view, a functional model, or internal anticipatory model,
introduces novelty IN THE PRESENT, not historically. Evolution is then
an historical record of such novelties and genetic novelties as they
jointly  influenced or were influenced by natural selection.