At 02:34 AM 6/15/2007, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I'm all for not confusing what reality is about. But what are
misunderstandings made of?
On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Smith, Barry wrote:
I would be happy to allow 'concept' to be one of the terms used in
developing an ontology of misunderstandings. And also '"concept"'.
(In that ontology, indeed, 'misunderstand_involving_use_of_"concept"'
will presumably have very many children.)
On Jun 15, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Smith, Barry wrote:
Brainwaves and neurophysiological signalling are necessary for
ontology-building, too. But ontologies are not representations of
brain-waves. And ontologies are not specifications of
Aside from the general drollness of misunderstand_involving_use_of_"concept" the responses together accentuate the original question of what misunderstandings are made of. (I note also that there would also be very many children of misunderstand_involving_use_of_"ontology", misunderstand_involving_use_of_"class", misunderstand_involving_use_of_"universal", and a whole lot of other such)
Based on previous previous readings, in addition to your current statements, that it is allowable that an ontology is a representation of biological reality.
- An ontology can be the representation of misunderstandings (I pass over, with only this parenthetical, the use of the negative in the names)
- An ontology can be the representation of understandings (if the negative, then the positive too?)
- An ontology can not be the representation of brain waves and electroneurophysiological signals
- So understandings and misunderstandings are not brain waves or electroneurophysiological signals
And am still therefore left with the question of what they are...