>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
>
>>John and Pat,
>>
>>To create the World Description Framework for knowledge machines and
>>semantic systems is hardly possible
>
>I tend to agree with that sentiment, if your sentence were to end there.
>
>>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
>
>Fogive me butting in at this point, but this is
>simply nonsensical raving.
>
>ASHA: I noticed a tendency, whenever it is hard
>to comprehend, you switch the same psychological
>defence mechanism: ''meaningless raving,
>sensless ranting'', etc. (01)
Unfortunately the issue is not that it is hard to
comprehend, but that it is all too easy to
comprehend. Many of us - I know I am not alone -
are almost regularly exposed to claims to have
invented or written something universal,
world-encompassing, all-inclusive, etc.. It is
similar to the number of emails that physicists
and engineers get claiming to have invented a
perpetual-motion machine or explaining the errors
in the theory of relativity. (02)
>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.
>
>ASHA: We are speaking here about a Universal
>Theory of the World (UTW), as John remarked,
>covering your GUT aswell, as a particular case. (03)
You seem not to have grasped my point. (Its not
*my* GUT, by the way: the term is used by
theoretical physicists: somewhat ironically, I
gather). (04)
> By the way, no UTW, no the standard web
>ontology, and no the semantic web, so promoted
>by you.
>
>If you have done this, you should be
>publishing in physics journals, and you will soon
>have a Nobel prize.
>
>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. (05)
The extent to which you are living in a dream, or
maybe fantasy, world is becoming more and more
evident. (06)
>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.
>
>ASHA: to know what the ontology engineering is,
>you need to have understanding of ontology
>itself, is it? (07)
In the sense in which the word is used in
"ontology engineering", I do have such an
understanding. Whatever YOU mean by "ontology" is
evidently something else. Which is exactly my
point. (08)
>>; 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.
>
>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.
>
>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; (09)
Can you cite me anyone else who uses this term
"Real Logic" with this meaning? Whatever you are
talking about here is not the topic called
"logic" throughout the intellectual world at
present. (010)
>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. (011)
This is relevant to historians of logic, but not to modern logical research. (012)
>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). (013)
There is no point in continuing this discussion.
Let us agree to disagree. However, I should in
all honesty let you know that I have created an
email filter to trash any further emails from
you, in order to avoid wasting any more of my
time. No doubt, given the scope of your ambition,
I will hear about your work through other
channels. (014)
Pat (015)
>
>good wishes and kind regards,
>Azamat
>
>Pat
>
>>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
>>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 (016)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|