On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: (01)
> And if you subscribe to for example public-semweb-lifesci@xxxxxx
> (or look in the recent archives) you will see hard-nosed, busy,
> practical men who are trying to build systems of direct social and
> scientific importance, having interminable debates about whether
> or not a computational process has to be distinguished from a
> physical process because one is a continuant but the other is an
> occurrent. All of which is a tragic waste of time and energy. (02)
a) I think this subject came up at the beginning of the month or so,
at worst, a portion of discussion during a period of 3 weeks has been
tragically wasted. Also, as you point out on occasion, these
discussions are finite, and so the debates are certainly not
interminable :)
b) Being one of those people, I don't happen to think that the
discussion is a waste of time. There is a lot of (well meaning but)
sloppy thinking that happens on that list, and the discussions on
computation processes are, at a minimum, educational. They seem, to
my experience, the normal sort of discussion a group of people have
as they move towards a common understanding. (03)
Hard nosed, busily, practically, yours, (04)
Alan (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|