Robert, (01)
I would like to draw your attention to our Ontolog community
contribution guidelines and policy[1], and more specifically our Open
IPR Policy[2] which states,
//
... those who are unable to contribute under the [Ontolog's specific
open] licensing arrangements should refrain from contributing to the
[ontolog-forum] content.
// (02)
While we will still ignore your "NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY," it would
be courteous of your to make a follow-up post to withdraw that
statement. (03)
For the future, please ensure you remove any such statement from your
post. If you prefer (as a lot of our members do) to subscribe to the
community mailing list with another (personal) address which is
unencumbered with similar notice(s), just let me know. (04)
[1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid3LHV (05)
[2] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32 (06)
Thanks & regards. =ppy (07)
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
-- (08)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (09)
I don't see what the purported evidence is evidence of. (010)
There is a difference between theories of reality and reality itself.
That we can come up with different theories, and that those theories
may be influence (or biased) by certain pyschological (or other)
factors does not mean there is no universal ontology. (I say this with
the understanding that "universal ontology" is in the philosophical
sense, basically meaning that there is an objective (mind-independent)
reality...and that it is knowable). Now why one would subscribe to a
view questioning (or the stronger: denying) that there is a reality
independent on minds, I cannot say. But in doing so (at least the
stronger), they would negate science itself, and therefore their own
mind. (011)
As for natural kinds: by their very definition (or by the common
philosophical understanding of them), they are delineations of a
mind-independent reality, hence natural. The only change I would make
to this would be to remind persons that minds are themselves parts of
reality and hence natural. (012)
To say beliefs steer (in a strong sense as in determine) perception is
likely too strong; I would not take the articles cited too much to
heart. The universe itself is dynamically changing, as in mind. One
limitation of the entire knowledge representation (and related fields)
is that snapshots are (perhaps presently necessarily) used to
represent a dynamically changing world. (013)
Respectfully,
Robert (014)
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in or attached to
this email is private and confidential, is protected from disclosure
and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Review,
reproduction, or use of this information by unintended or unauthorized
recipients is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender, delete it from any and all your computer
systems, and do not read, retransmit, retain, print, publish,
distribute, disclose or copy this information, or take any action in
reliance thereon. This also means that it's expected that the content
of this message will not be shared with others without the consent of
the sender. (015)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Rich Cooper
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here is yet another anecdotal evidence ...[snip]
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (016)
|