Pat,
thanks for your feedback and see my comments below.
regards,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep (01)
>John and Pat,
>
>To create the World Description Framework for knowledge machines and
>semantic systems is hardly possible (02)
I tend to agree with that sentiment, if your sentence were to end there. (03)
>without understanding the real nature of
>ontology. Namely, that it studies the being of everything which exists and
>changes; that it is the general account of reality, the world, the
>universe,
>or all existence; that it is pure, abstract, or theoretical science; that
>it
>increases the world knowledge, unfolds new basic truths, develops new
>sciences and technology, like semantic web, and affords consistent world
>representation; that it is a productive science rather than critical, as
>formal logic; that it is universal language for all sciences (04)
Fogive me butting in at this point, but this is
simply nonsensical raving. (05)
ASHA: I noticed a tendency, whenever it is hard to comprehend, you switch
the same psychological defence mechanism: ''meaningless raving, sensless
ranting'', etc. (06)
To claim to be doing
the one true science of everything which is at
the same time universal, true and abstract, is
silly. If modern science has any single lesson,
it is that there is no such universal science.
For example, such a subject, if it existed, would
have to encompass at least the long-sought but as
yet undiscovered Grand Unified Theory of physics,
for example. (07)
ASHA: We are speaking here about a Universal Theory of the World (UTW), as
John remarked, covering your GUT aswell, as a particular case. By the way,
no UTW, no the standard web ontology, and no the semantic web, so promoted
by you. (08)
If you have done this, you should be
publishing in physics journals, and you will soon
have a Nobel prize. (09)
ASHA: The Nobel prize you can get only for something very specific and very
old today; again, you must be born in one specific country and have one
specific origin. So, it is hard to remember any great mind who got this
fictive trophy. (010)
This is not what ontology engineering is about. I
sincerely wish you would communicate with a
different forum which is devoted to whatever it
is that you do. (011)
ASHA: to know what the ontology engineering is, you need to have
understanding of ontology itself, is it? (012)
>; that it yields
>the most comprehensive K&R language for machines; and that it is not just a
>vocabulary, a catalog of common terms, taxonomy, terminology,
>conceptualization, conceptual analysis, model, and what not.
>
>I am curious, while pushing the common logic, do you mean one logic to all
>fields of knowledge, fitting ontology, maths, physics, ethics, politics,
>history, etc., or something else. (013)
Logic is (and always has been) what one might
call subject-matter-neutral. So yes, it can be
applied to all these fields, and many others.
However, it is not itself a THEORY in any of
these fields. It does not make logical statements
or claims which are relevant to any of ontology,
physics, ethics, etc. (014)
ASHA: You have a low opinion even about your favorite subject. In fact,
there are two types of logic:
1. Real Logic, or Logic of Things, dealing with the matter and content of
thought and eliciting the most universal truths about reality;
2. Formal logic, or logic of forms, dealing with the formal aspects of
discourse about anything, but without any reference to reality and to real
meanings. It might be interested for you that the basic elements of logic,
analysis of terms, propositions and inferences, their classification and
rules of valid inference, you can again find in Aristotle's Organon (the
Categories, On Interpretation, the Prior Analytics, the Posterior Analytics,
the Topics), so disliked by you.
I am surprised to mention these common things to the such high quality
researcher as you are. But where you are common together, logic was not
recognized as a theoretical science, unlike physics, mathematics, and
ontology (theology originally). (015)
good wishes and kind regards,
Azamat (016)
Pat (017)
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Azamat
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep
>
>
>> Azamat,
>>
>> You are taking the a priori view that there exists an ideal
>> abstract ontology that is somehow the foundation for everything.
>>
>> That view is close to Plato's view of the forms, but it is very
>> different from Aristotle's empirical view.
>>
>> > Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology,
>> > Semantics, etc.) and the foundation of all sciences, physical,
>> > psychological, social, and engineering, thus it sets the most
>> > basic assumptions for the world knowledge, to be truly
>> > represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic technology.
>>
>> Since there is no generally agreed ontology, I can accept that
>> statement as equivalent to "the empty set is a subset of everything".
>>
>> > Other views only deprecate its high status of Science of
>> > sciences.
>>
>> I am willing to say that a good ontology would be valuable,
>> but I certainly deprecate 99% of what people say about ontology
>> as being pure baloney.
>>
>> John
>>
>
>
>
>
>>John wrote:
>>''Ontology is something that one could study in science (discovering what
>>exists) or in philosophy
>>characterizing what exists) or in both.''
>>
>>John,
>>Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology, Semantics, etc.)
>>and the foundation of all sciences, physical, psychological, social, and
>>engineering, thus it sets the most basic assumptions for the world
>>knowledge, to be truly represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic
>>technology. Other views only depricate its high status of Science of
>>sciences.
> >
>>Azamat
>
>Carème, the great French chef, once famously
>said: "Of all the arts, the highest is
>Architecture; and of the branches of
>Architecture, the greatest is Confectionery."
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (018)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|