Re: [Gfo-users] Presentation and questions

[Claudio Gnoli]

Greetings all,

""" Firstly, from a top-level perspective, especially "behavior" and
"learning" seem to fall into the category of processual structures,
i.e. either being processes themselves or closely related to or
derived from processes. Secondly, GFO follows to some extent the
approach of distinguishing levels of reality, including (at least)
three major (so-called) strata ("areas"): the material stratum, the
mental/psychological stratum and the social stratum. All mentioned
notions seem to belong mainly to the mental/psychological stratum,
possibly intertwined with the social stratum.
""" (Frank Loebe)

sorry for a late reply, but I thought it could be worth mentioning the
treatment of behavioural concepts in the Integrative Levels
Classification [http://www.iskoi.org/ilc/] as it is also based on
Hartmann's theory of levels and on Poli's work. Of course it differs
from GFO in being much less formalized, as it is rather based on the
tradition of bibliographic classifications.

ILC approach seems to agree with Frank Loebe's view that behavioural
concepts belong to the mental stratum, of which they are the first
layer (class o "instincts") followed by the layers of consciousness,
signs, and language. The further strata of societies and of cultures
then follow.

Notice that, unlike in ontologies, ILC primary divisions are not by
categories (entities/properties/processes etc.) but by levels of
phenomena (matter/life/mind/society/culture). Indeed, in
classifications categories are expressed as facets within each level,
so e.g. "inhibition" belongs to the process facet of the "instincts"
class.

Each class is usually named after entities of its level: this is why
Roberto Poli once commented that "behaviour" was not a good label for
this class, as it conveys a processual meaning, so we have now changed
the label into "instincts".

Admittedly it is not so easy to identify entities in the behavioural
sciences, but for now we have divided "instincts" into types of
increasing evolutionary complexity according to ethology handbooks,
that is "autonomous activities" "reflexes", "hereditary coordinations"
etc. until "life habits". Any suggestion is welcome here!

Best regards,

Claudio
http://mate.unipv.it/gnoli/