On Friday, September 12, 2008 3:55 PM, Rob Freeman wrote:
> John,
> I don't know how much time I want to spend on this. In particular with
> you John, I've been talking about it for years. Typically you fight
> like the devil, but agree in the end (without seemingly changing the
> way you deal with categories in practice: no googling for you.)
> I don't have the time to continually repeat old arguments. (01)
One great ancient mind told that ''honesty is not exemplified'', I may add:
''respect is not exemplified'' (apropos, see how ''intension'' works,
property must be instantiated by a class of instances).
John is a soul and mind of this community, i believe of any intelligent
comminity. Whatever he posts always has some deep point, some rational gist
inside; one need just little tax his busy mind. No John, no more this forum,
it will die out before soon, sorry, Peter. But what is mystical for me,
indeed, he sometimes gives in, while being fully right, just to be polite or
to encourage you, or to get you believe that you are smarter than are ?
As for the paper you brought up from Wired Magazine. With the same result
the guy could pen about: 'the End of Humanity', just because of some
evidence of decline of manhood. This is exactly the case when a piece of
stupidity examplified as a piece of article. The editor is after some
'intelligent' news causing a sensation, with no uderstanding of correlation,
causality, theory, model, knowledge, and data. But that behavior is typical
for all tabloids, not mentioning big media corporations; how to survive for
them unless to lie, cooking up spooky stories in all spheres of social life,
in politics, in economy, in religion, and now in science and technology.
What's else to expect from the quasi-knowledge society? (02)
Azamat Abdoullaev (03)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Freeman" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology (04)
> John,
>
> I don't know how much time I want to spend on this. In particular with
> you John, I've been talking about it for years. Typically you fight
> like the devil, but agree in the end (without seemingly changing the
> way you deal with categories in practice: no googling for you.)
>
> I don't have the time to continually repeat old arguments.
>
> But you may genuinely think nothing new can be said because words are
> old, so I'll just quickly mention, in a very practical way directly
> relevant to language, why using old words need not limit you to old
> generalizations.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:54 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The words of language are labels attached to those generalizations
>> that people consider important. Some of them, like 'cat' and 'tree'
>> refer to frequently observed patterns, and others like 'zodiac'
>> refer to theory-laden generalizations of generalizations.
>>
>> So when you compress data on the WWW by statistics or search it
>> without compression, you are always using the labels that were
>> derived by millennia of human beings from generalizations that
>> were important to their lives. Even if you store all the raw
>> data on the WWW and go back to it for every use, you will never
>> avoid generalizations. The so called "raw" data cannot be
>> purged of the generalizations by which they were derived.
>
> Simply put, you can escape the old generalizations implicit in words,
> by using new combinations of words.
>
> This is true of syntax in language. It is also true of combinations of
> search keys in indexed search.
>
> Of course as you and I both know, Wittgenstein, for one, has written
> lovely stuff about indeterminacy of word meaning (e.g. "natural
> families": http://www.chaoticlanguage.com/node/7.) So by modern
> philosophical dogma the meaning of even isolated words should be seen
> as indeterminate, even if it is not new. Age does not lend
> definiteness. But that's indeterminacy, not novelty. So just to point
> out that novelty is possible too (by new combinations.)
>
> Ed Barkmeyer: If I understand you correctly the point you raise is
> about the reliability of data. The issues Anderson's is talking about,
> even more so those of Chaitin, Laughlin, Pines, have nothing to do
> with reliability, not in the simple sense of "error" anyway. They are
> also not issues which can be resolved by "proving" or "disproving" a
> hypothesis.
>
> If I'm slow replying forgive me. It is difficult for me to get on-line
> reliably where I am.
>
> -Rob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|