Frank, (01)
>Len,Thank you for this challenging reply. here is what I can add to it: (02)
LY>What are you suggesting?
...
FK>The main point is that an object as a concept is your creation, and is a
result of specification wroking backwards from the list of properties to
identify an object.
> (03)
What you said is tautology because "properties" and "objects" are concepts in
the first place. To get out of it some smart people invented Category Theory to
deal with objects in a consistent way. What you call "working backwards" is
known as transformation or morphism, includes identity and many other
properties. The basic idea of connecting object properties with their identity
is known as "strong reference" and was originally proposed by Chris Partridge
(who had occasionally contributed to this forum). He had also given a special
role to reified binary relations that he called "tuple places". I have further
advanced notion of "strong reference" by proposing specific method of making it
computable.
...
>
FK>The reason is siemple, we have a differet set of experience and knowlede not
to mention the drastic difference of speaking different native tongues. (04)
I don't think our native tongues are so different (I can probably understand
the meaning of my last name) (05)
FK>But there is no coherent model or theory of how we get to our concepts, not
even at the core level where we start off from nothing, and gradually enlarge
our experience classified in three basic categoris - but not static, not as a
picture, but as a process or procedure of the mental operatons
properly identiified and sorted in sequence or cycles. That is waht I wouldlike
to share with in a project but none is so far serioulsy interested, which does
not bother me, you are loosing out on that. (06)
There is nothing to be interested in. On one hand you are saying "there is no
coherent model", on the other hand you are proposing an incoherent model of
yours, as a proof perhaps. Is that supposed to be interesting? I think a
coherent model of "how we get our concepts" is very close or even available
today. We can't be sure until it is fully applied and tested. (07)
FK>I need to contradict you. As soon as you start thinking in terms of creating
your concepts in a set manner, data, operations data, you will have Rubki's
cube problem multilied starting off from upper levle and going down to epcifics
of everyday objects in yout onlotlogy tree.
> (08)
Are you re-inventing a "naive" set theory? In that case you may want to skip a
few well-known paradoxes and chose between three or more mature set theories (I
let experts to speak about it). In any case none of existing set theories can
be connected directly to "ontology tree" (at least to my knowledge) (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|