Re: [ontolog-forum] Scheduling a Discussion [was: CL, CG, IKL and the re

[Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>]

At 10:11 AM -0500 1/17/08, Deborah MacPherson wrote:

> ........what Joe wants is impossible,
> because there isn't anything useful to be said that applies to
> everything. Anything non-trivial will be true of some things and
> false of others: it will divide the universe into examples and
> non-examples. It will be a category.
> >
> > Do you see the point?
> >
> > Pat
> OK, I use the word boundary for this then.
> What I'm asking about is a more general
> process of elimination before that.

? Before selecting some part of the universe? Its hard for me to see how one can be more general than that.

>  Narrowing down which data and
> contexts

Apparently my point has not quite reached its target. To say "Which...contexts..." presupposes that there is some large collection or broad category of "contexts",  from which we need to select those of interest. My point is that there is no such broad category: or, if you prefer, this category is simply everything.

> to consider even accessing or working
> with in the first place, rather than starting from "everything"
> aiming at only one category. Yes it fits the general theory/No it does
> not.

There is no such general theory.

> A human to human metaphor could be a
> psychologist first interviewing a patient ruling out what the problem
> is not before pinning down what it is, or Dustin Hoffman's character
> eliminating huge swaths of literature by a few atypical questions in
> the movie Stranger Than Fiction.
>
> Common syntax, semantics, and pragmatics across many categories. 
> I have recently been looking at papers on mereology that seem to run
> along these lines and would sincerely appreciate pointers to more on
> THIS type of context and data processing currently in use
> today.

WHAT type? Mereology is a general axiomatic approach (I can't say theory as there are many of them) to the notion of 'parthood', the relationship of parts of things to the wholes of which they are a part. That is a fascinating topic, but it kind of stands on its own as a particular topic, and doesn't suggest a natural generalization to any particular 'type'.

Also, mereology has nothing particularly to do with contexts, so I am baffled to understand what you are asking for.

I'd like to help, but I can't tell what it is you want to know.

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

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)