Next >> << Prev
Contents

Assessment of a mostly grounded semantic model of conscious reality for conformance with the criteria for clarity

This page analyses the mostly grounded semantic model of conscious reality presented on the previous page for conformance with the criteria for clarity and consistency proposed on the introductory page:

  1. Semantic clarity.
  2. Conceptual clarity.
  3. Representational accuracy.

The criteria for the criterion of semantic clarity for a clear semantic model are that it is:

  • Piecewise distinct: Each component concept, and the meanings of the words or other symbols that it uses, do not overlap one another without good cause, where a potential good cause is that one is a useful abstraction of the other.
  • Piecewise precise: Each component concept is defined clearly and with precision.
  • Unequivocal: Each word or other symbol used is defined to have either a single meaning, or, if it is defined to have multiple meanings, then the different meanings in the different contexts in which the word or other symbol is used are made clear.
  • Essentially denotationally consistent: The stipulated meaning of each word or symbol does not contradict the essential meaning of its common or technically contextual usage, though it might, for clarity in context, be specified more precisely than its essential common or technical meaning.

The component concepts used in my semantic model are as follows. Those which have been explicitly defined or described in detail commensurate with a definition are highlighted:

I propose that the meanings of the highlighted terms have been defined sufficiently clearly and precisely, and that the meanings of the remaining terms are sufficiently clear as not to require explicit definition, and are sufficiently precise. I also propose that the meanings of these terms are distinct, and that they are unequivocal: the only term for which multiple meanings have been stipulated - "mind" - has not been used in any way in which its meaning would be unclear. I also propose that none of the definitions of any of the terms above contradicts its essential common or technical meaning. I thus propose that this semantic model meets all of the criteria for the criterion of semantic clarity, and thus that it meets the criterion of semantic clarity.

The criteria for the criterion of conceptual clarity for a clear semantic model are that it is:

  • Essential: The model expresses a key concept.
  • Non-extraneous: The model uses no more component concepts than are necessary to express the key concept.
  • Complete: The model uses sufficient component concepts to express the key concept.
  • Piecewise necessitated: Each component concept is necessary to support the key concept.
  • Precise: Each component concept has an appropriate degree of abstraction to the model's explanatory purpose, and, overall, the model as a relationship of component concepts expresses the key concept at an appropriate degree of abstraction.
  • Relationally integrated: Each component concept is in some appropriate relationship to at least one other, and all component concepts are related to one another via the network.
  • Consistent: No concept or relationship contradicts any other, and no set of concepts or relationships taken together entail a contradiction.
  • Justified: A good reason can be given for the inclusion and scope of each component concept or relationship to the extent that it is not speculative.
  • Parsimonious: To the extent that the model is theoretical, its theories comprise the minimum conceptual substance necessary to explain those facts which they are intended to explain.
  • Optimal: The model could not express the key concept better than it does at its level of precision using alternative component concepts and/or the relationships between them.

The key concept expressed by the model is that consciousness "shines" out from portals, at the origin of which is the undifferentiated unity which is the subject of consciousness, along an axis of decreasing selfhood, into differentiated mental and reflective energy which "recognises" that consciousness, within the dimensionality of inter-self relations. I propose that this meets the essential criterion.

I also propose that no more component concepts than are necessary are used to express this key concept, that there are sufficient component concepts to express the key concept, and that each of the component concepts is necessary to support this key concept, and thus that the model meets the criteria of non-extraneousness, completeness and piecewise necessitation.

I also propose that all concepts have an appropriate degree of abstraction and that the model overall has a degree of abstraction appropriate to its explanatory purpose, and thus that the criterion for precision is met.

A summary of the relationships between component concepts of my semantic model is that between:

I propose from the above, though without presenting a network diagram to demonstrate it, that each component concept is in relationship with at least one other, and that all component concepts are related to one another via the network, and thus that the relational integrity criterion is met.

I propose, too, that no concept or relationship in the model contradicts any other, that no set of concepts or relationships taken together entail a contradiction, and thus that the model meets the criterion of consistency.

I propose that good reasons can be given for the conceptual scope of each component concept or relationship - one, for example, was given for limiting the definition of consciousness to that which is undifferentiated - and thus that the criterion for justification is met.

I propose that the only theory of the model is that solipsism is false, and that the conceptual substance of this theory is minimally necessary in order to explain the following grounded facts:

I therefore propose that the criterion of parsimony is met.

I propose, too, that the model could not express the key concept better than it does using alternative component concepts and/or the relationships between them, and thus that the criterion of optimality is met.

I thus propose that this semantic model meets all of the criteria for the criterion of conceptual clarity, and thus that it meets the criterion of conceptual clarity.

The criterion of representational accuracy for a semantic model is that:

If the semantic model is representative, then its representation is accurate of that which it represents, otherwise this criterion does not apply.

I propose that this semantic model is based in grounded facts about reality other than the theory that solipsism is false, and that none of its concepts entail facts that are not grounded other than the falsity of solipsism, and that a reasonable justification has been given for affirming the ungrounded fact that solipsism is false, and thus that this criterion is met.

On the next page, I contextualise various common ontologies from the perspective of this semantic model.

Changelog (most recent first)

Next >> << Prev
Contents