To: | "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
From: | paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:40:49 +0700 |
Message-id: | <c09b00eb0706141940q755a80ch775c7ee019d60ae5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
HI Pat concept are mental constructs, not sure how to distinguish them from ideas, but I think there are different stages of thinking, still largerly not /observed/understood, and pertaining to the domain of brain and mind studies. Maybe that's why they look mysterious Something to do with abstract knowledge representation I think, which is the formation of mental models generated by the core of our central processing system and not yet formalized/expressed in procedural logical form. One of the stages of logical thinking perhaps. words are the next stage, where concept are 'expressed' and 'communicated' in linguistic form while concepts can exist without words, words cannot exist without the conepts they convey I respect if someone prefers not to use c class words, for whatever reason, but I think concepts and derived words are a very precise name for a 'class of abstract knowledge, that we cannot do without in ontology. You may also prefer to use other words, for your own reasons, which is fine. but I must defend the proper use of the c words conveys exactly a very important meaning which is fundamental to discourse, and that there is no reason to become obsessesed (and spreading this obsession to others!). When we avoid using the right words for things, we end up going an awful lot in circles, while a simple right word will do the trick just fine I agree with you that sometimes we could make an effort and try to be more precise with our language If it comes to it, I ll write a paper too, and will definitely have to look for funding fro this one cheers Paola Di Maio On 6/14/07, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote: >I am writing up against a deadline and suddenly -- Paola Di Maio ***** School of Information Technology Mae Fah Luang University Chiang Rai - Thailand ********************************************* _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?, Doug Holmes |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] First-Order Semantics, John F. Sowa |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?, Pat Hayes |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question?, Smith, Barry |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |