Some comments below.
Regards,
Azamat
>>>>''A common world model'', or
a single global ontology, is a necessary and
>>>>sufficient
condition of powerful intelligent
systems.
>>>
>>>Well, that is wrong both ways round.
It is certainly not
>>>sufficient: an ontology by itself, no
matter how global or common
>>>or all-encompassing, does not DO
anything, and intelligence is only
>>>revealed in activity of
some kind. And it is not necessary, since
>>>the only exemplars
we have of intelligence are ourselves - human
>>>intelligence -
and we do not have a single common world model.
>>
>>You do
have it. Just don't feel it.
>
> No, we really do not have a
single common ontology. This is quite
> evident when one tries to get
people to agree on a formal ontology.
> They seriously disagree - that
is, they each find the other's point
> of view insane, and will argue
for hours, in some cases for years -
> about questions such as:
>
> -- is the paint on the wall of a room in the room, or part of the
room?
> -- is saying that a cat is eating at a time t the same as saying
that
> the temporal part of the cat at t is eating?
> -- is a cat
at a time t the same thing as the same cat at a different time t'?
>
> and many, many others.
This is a sort of sophistical technicalities,
created by endurantists and perdurantists, and irrelevant to a serious
discussion.
>
>
>>>>....
>>>>A fundamental ontology is not a
matter of choice or discussion. It is an
>>>>essential
constituent of any knowledge, human or machine-understandable,
of
>>>>any reasoning, natural or artificial, of any language,
natural or formal, of
>>>>any artefacts, physical or
intelligent,
>>>
>>>Sorry, but this is nonsense.
Reasoning takes place in mathematics,
>>>for example, without the
benefit of a fundamental ontology.
>>
>>Sorry, but this is a
real nonsense. All great mathematical theories
>>are underpinned by
fundamental ontology, its categories and rules.
>
> What
categories and rules of an ontology are required for, say,
> algebraic
topology, or formal set theory?
the universe, set, class, entity, object, structure, order and
relationship. No wonder that the originator of set theory in his foundational
work (Cantor, 1883), considered his creation as an extension of a classical
ontology.
Cantor, G. (1883). Foundations of a General Theory of Aggregates.
In W. Ewald (Ed.) (1996). From Kant to Hilbert: A
Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press.
Exploiting your interest and
expertise, and for more systematic answer, i am ready to present for your
editorial comments the Chapter III titled,
THE WORLD CODE:
Mathematical Ontology as the Real
Road to Reality (9 pages, single
spaced) .
>
> Pat
>
>> Also
all the great mathematicians have been also good ontologists
>>like
Cantor.
>>Azamat
>>>
>>>Pat
>>>
>>>--
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>IHMC
(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>>>40 South
Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>>>Pensacola (850)202
4440 fax
>>>FL 32502 (850)291 0667
cell
>>>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>
>
> --
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz
St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202
4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667
cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>