A prion is a protein molecule, is it not? Thus it is a continuant.
BS (01)
At 03:58 PM 6/9/2007, clynch wrote:
>Barry, In light of the current thinking on
>prions, I wonder if you might want to rethink
>the statement of <BS> Having worked long and
>hard with biologists it has become clear to me
>that the continuant/occurrent distinction is the
>most well entrenched of all the joints in nature
>(the distinction between anatomy and physiology,
>for example, is very old, and has not been
>threatened one iota by recent developments in,
>e.g. cellular anatomy>/BS> I think this does in
>fact break the long held distinction between
>anatomy (structure) and physiology, in that the
>only difference in the infectivity (physiology)
>of the protein is in its morphology (anatomy).
>Cecil -----Original Message----- From:
>ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Smith, Barry Sent: Saturday, June
>09, 2007 5:54 AM To: [ontolog-forum] ;
>'[ontolog-forum] ' Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
>Two ontologies that are inconsistent but
>bothneeded Responding to Chris's comments on Pat
>/ Bill composite: At 05:32 AM 6/9/2007, Chris
>Partridge wrote: >Pat: 4) Again, following
>Quine's doctrine, what >are these things for
>which the >continuant/occurrent distinction
>is >incoherent? Presumably, you'd want to
>be >quantifying over some class of objects for
>which >you'd like to state some axioms
>governing, e.g., >property change over time,
>however that comes >out in your favorite
>formalism. Then, by >Quine's doctrine you're
>committing to the >existence of those
>things. Let's call
>them >Continuoccurrents. Now you have to
>elaborate >your theory of Continuoccurrents and
>distinguish >them from temperatures, numbers,
>properties, >propositions and all the kinds of
>other things >you have in your
>ontology. Doesn't sound to me >like that
>project is any less problematic than >the
>defense of either bicategorialism, 4D, or >any
>other metaphysical framework. By this I >mean
>on a practical, engineering level. > >Chris: It
>seems, to me at least, there is a >difference
>between the continuant/occurrent >distinction
>and some of the other choices. These >other
>choices (e.g. 4D) seem to be metaphysical, >in
>that it is difficult to devise an
>empirical >check on whether they are correct.
>With the >continuant/occurrent distinction there
>seem to >be cases that question whether it
>partitions >objects. You know the standard
>philosophical >cases avalanches and waves as
>these have been discussed before. The problem
>here, I think, is that people assume that
>fast-moving and fast-changing continuants
>Consider a pack of monkeys moving through a
>forest, losing the odd monkey at the rear and
>gaining the odd monkey towards the front. The
>pack is a continuant. The processes of losing
>and gaining are occurrents. Waves are like that
>(monkeys = water molecules); organisms are like
>that (monkeys = cells). Avalanche theory is
>based on the distinction between granular layers
>(continuants) and flows (which when summed
>together make the avalanches themselves). > In
>ontologies that deal with engineering >
>artefact, the same phenomena seems to arise >
>when (when we have a similar structure where) >
>objects are the components for other objects >
>built out. A simple example would be a network >
>of systems, sometimes people see it as the >
>systems networking, sometime people see it as
>a > network that things happen to e.g. it
>goes > down for a while. To go back to Barry’s >
>example, some biologists see human bodies,
>e.g. > Fritz’s, as a process, with temporal
>parts can you give me one or two examples of
>biologists who think that? > and would find it
>odd to have to distinguish >between Fritz’s body
>and Fritz’s body’s life. It >seems more as if
>the distinction is about >different ways of
>looking at things, that >sometimes can usefully
>be applied to the same thing. No one is denying
>that there are different ways of looking at
>things. Perhaps someone can even look at Fritz's
>body and see it as a life, though I find it hard
>to do so. > >My personal experience is that when
>dealing with >the large bodies of data that
>exist in >operational systems, when constructing
>simple >taxonomies of the artefacts this data
>refers to, >I am (reasonably) often faced with a
>problem >about which category I want to put them
>in and >what category to put there more
>general >supertypes that seem to include both
>occurrents >and continuants. Of course, I can
>devise a >practical workaround (for each of
>these >problematic classes of objects, introduce
>two >objects the object and its life and
>ignore >feelings that these seem reminiscent
>of >Ptolemy’s major epicycles) but this adds
>noise. So how do you deal with John's lung was
>healthy 5 years ago and cancerous today? > >It
>also seems to me pragmatic to, when
>dealing >with large systems, try to ‘cut nature
>at its >joints’ and not have too many
>workarounds making >the systems more complicated
>than they need to >be. Hence my suspicions (and
>maybe Pat’s) of this distinction. Having worked
>long and hard with biologists it has become
>clear to me that the continuant/occurrent
>distinction is the most well entrenched of all
>the joints in nature (the distinction between
>anatomy and physiology, for example, is very
>old, and has not been threatened one iota by
>recent developments in, e.g. cellular anatomy.)
>BS
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 No
>virus found in this incoming message. Checked by
>AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus
>Database: 269.8.13/840 - Release Date: 6/8/2007
>3:15 PM No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 /
>Virus Database: 269.8.13/840 - Release Date:
>6/8/2007 3:15 PM
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|