[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both needed

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:37:07 +0200
Message-id: <4669E823.2010700@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat Hayes wrote:
>> An example is described here:
>> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/persistence.pdf
>> Barry
> Hey, nice survey. Utterly wrong in its 
> conclusions, but nice :-). I'm happy to welcome 
> you to this debate which many of us have been 
> involved in for quite a long time. (see for 
> example
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/Endurantism&PerdurantismDebate2002.pdf )    (01)

I must admit I sympathize with most of what Pat said.    (02)

Just to add a few cents:  the notion of 'now' (in the sense of how we 
perceive presentness) as a time instant is somewhat incorrect.
The so called 'doctrine of specious present' [1], for example,  claims 
that what we perceive as 'now' is not an instant, but rather an interval.    (03)

We may actually not need to talk about time instants at all to describe 
the world as we perceive it.    (04)

vQ    (05)

[1] Mundle, C.W.K., Augustine's Pervasive Error Concerning Time, 
Philosophy, 1966
(after http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/)    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>