[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:07:33 +0000
Message-id: <W685812435209741217970453@webmail13>
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 
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>