> @
cytanet.com.cy
> wrote:
> >Paola,
> >
> >Try to explain your concerns in a more systematic way. Knowledge
> systems, as
> >semantic web applications, thinking machines, etc., are all designed to be
> >using ''sensible'' signs (physical signals, codes, or words) in order to
> >process and communicate information about things, processes, facts, rules,
> >laws, feelings, ideas, thoughts, or concepts.
> >
> >Unlike the human brain, in the intelligent machines the symbolic codes
> >signify things directly without the agency of concepts,
> constructs, notions,
> >categories or abstractions. This means that the nature of mechanical meaning
> >is dependent on the types of symbols and the kinds of things these symbols
> >denote (symbolize, stand for or name) or represent. And that knowledge
> >machines are devoid of mental experience or meaningful mental constructs.
> >
> >The symbols processed by the mechanical intelligence are the signs of
> >entities and hence they get their significance without the
> mediation of the
> >conceptions of human intellect ( note, the signification, not meaning; for
> >the symbol signifies, via denotation and representation, while the construct
> >means, via sense and reference). That is why the significance of symbols is
> >rather to come directly from the real objects denoted and their
> >relationships connoted, thus leaving off all the conceptual troubles
> >discommoding human beings.
> >
> >With best regards,
> >
> >Azamat
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Pat Hayes" <<mailto:
phayes@xxxxxxx>
phayes@xxxxxxx>
> >To: <<mailto:
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: <<mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:15 PM
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a
> >question?
> >
> >
> >I agree with Pat C (below), but here's my special
> >worry and why I'm going to try to do without the
> >c-word. Take an example. Right now at weekends Im
> >restoring an old house. My first Saturday task is
> >to cut some furring strips: long thin pieces of
> >wood nailed to the studs, used to make a wall a
> >bit thicker (to give room for a drainpipe.) So,
> >here's my question: is "furring strip" a concept?
> >Hmm, I don't know. I certainly think about
> >furring strips, and so if thinking involves
> >concepts then there must be a furring strip
> >concept, I guess. But I don't think I need to
> >refer to it or talk about it. Concepts aren't the
> >kind of thing that one can drive a nail through,
> >and furring strips are. So apparently furring
> >strips themselves are not concepts. And 'furring
> >strip' is an English noun phrase, which I guess
> >isn't a concept either; and the phrase means the
> >wooden thing (or maybe the class of such things,
> >or the property of being such a thing, or
> >whatever: but not a concept, anyway). So concepts
> >don't seem to come into the language story or the
> >house-building story. Suppose I set out to make a
> >house-restoration ontology and I have an OWL
> >class called oldHouse:FurringStrip (which is a
> >subclass of oldHouse:SmallWoodPart, etc.); then
> >the class name is a URI and the class itself is a
> >OWL class, and I don't need to speak of concepts
> >to make sense of this. The OWL semantics doesn't
> >mention concepts anywhere. So where do the
> >concepts come into the story? What I certainly
> >want to avoid is saying or implying that either
> >the English 'furring strip' or the OWL
> >oldHouse:FurringStrip *mean* or *denote* a
> >concept. They both refer to something physical,
> >or a class of physical things. I don't get houses
> >built with concepts: I have to buy real, heavy
> >stuff from Home Depot and drive it there in my
> >truck. The safest way to avoid this mistake, I
> >think, is to just not mention the concepts at
> >all. I don't seem to need to mention them.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >
> > >Deborah, Patrick
> > >thanks -
> > >
> > >I have scanned Barry's (intringuing) paper, but
> > >do not have time to study in detail - being o
> > >and c
> > >not central to my problems right now - I also
> > >did a keyword search in the paper for
> > >concept,conceptual and and conceptualization,
> > >with zero results (bug in my world? - or have
> > >they manged to make the c world disappear
> > >without trace and still discuss the notions
> > >attached to it in the paper? - please indicate
> > >what page/line is the argument if you could)
> > >Will study in more detail when I have time.
> > >
> > >You mean there is no actual concrete proposal to
> > >ban the term 'concept' from the discourse,
> > >rather an informal suggestion or just avoid it -
> > >phew
> > >
> > >I would agree that we need to objectivize what
> > >is in our mind, and that ontology building is
> > >part of that effort. But the mind (individual)
> > >is the only organ that we have capable of
> > >producing abstraction
> > >and not sure if we should detach ourselves from
> > >the only generic term that we have to refer to
> > >the representation of that abstraction (the
> > >conceptualization) that we are capable of.
> > >
> > >I need to project the product of my mind (a
> > >concept) into the physical world, and need an
> > >umbrella term for it (apologies for the
> > >circularity). Linguistic fuzziness has a role,
> > >although I agree it is not always the best
> > >choice.
> > >
> > >I remember when I went to school teachers asked
> > >us to avoid using the term 'thing' and asked us
> > >to make an effort to use a more appropriate word
> > >, for example, instead of saying I feel
> > >something (undefined) we should look for a more
> > >appropriate vocabulary (I feel an emotion, or I
> > >feel this and feel that), thus helping us to
> > >develop our linguisti skills by learning how to
> > >use more precise words
> > >
> > >
> > >I am not sure that our languages are adequately
> > >developed to be able to support and express all
> > >the abstract generalizations/ concepts that the
> > >mind can conceive, maybe thats why we use a
> > >generalization of something abstract that we do
> > >not have words for as 'concept'. Generalizations
> > >are necessary because they allow anyone to
> > >visualize their own thing,
> > >
> > >But if it is a choice of words that you are
> > >after (avoiding to use a term which is
> > >potentially confusing to some) then I respect
> > >the choice, except that I wont be able to find
> > >relevant paragraph where the notion of 'concept'
> > >is discussed if you avoid it.
> > >
> > >I still think if we avoid 'concept' and derived
> > >words, we need to find a set of valid
> > >substitutes, lest we find ourselves lost for
> > >words - representation of the abstraction
> > >perhaps is an equivalent _expression_, or should
> > >we avoid that too, and the entire class of terms
> > >that refer to generic abstract representations?
> > >
> > >I think 'notion' is a word I use as a synonym of
> > >concept, (rather than umbrella?), but somehow it
> > >is not so 'expressive' , and maybe would end up
> > >with the same issue later on?
> > >
> > >Or maybe, just maybe, the word concept is a
> > >little abused, a cover word for when we dont
> > >know what to say really. The rather than avoid
> > >it, we should learn how to use it only when
> > >appropriate?
> > >
> > >boh - what a problem eh?
> > >
> > >cheers
> > >
> > >PDM
> > >(puzzled)
> > >((ignore me))
> >
> >Sorry, I won't ignore you, you raise such nice issues.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >On 6/14/07, Cassidy, Patrick J.