ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:10:27 +0300
Message-id: <001f01c918f0$aa26b190$a104810a@homepc>
On Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Matthew West wrote:
''What you present below is just another world view. I try hard not to tell people they have to share
my world view. But in return I do not expect others to impose their world view on me as if it was
obviously correct. I certainly do not accept the position stated below, but acknowledge that others
may wish to do so. My reasons in this case are simply that it is more complex than necessary.''
 
Dear Matthew,
 
Viewing your relaxed spirit, just some general thoughts for your peaceful cogitation. Generally agree to your suggestion that any intelligent person has sovereign rights for his particular worldviews. And nobody is allowed to encroach on such individual rights, including me as well. Then I want simply to share some deep concerns with the mind which respect.
Individuals are capable to construct worldviews, of all sorts and manner and styles, models, outlooks, hypothesis, schemes, schemata, scripts, etc. Take for example the wide-spread definition of (computing) ontology as ''a data model that represents the relationships of a set of concepts within a domain'' [Ontology (computer science)]. Even inter-subjectively supported, isn't funny such a particular wordlview for a person of reality like you?
Let me remind why the Economic Tsunami is certainly going to destroy the global economy. Just because this Big Economic Crunch was caused by particular worldviews: a now notorious group of NP prize winners in economics who imposed a ''scheme'' of unwarranted (''false'') mortgage securities costing no more no less but $ 500 trillion, while the whole world GDP hardly comes to the tenth. Getting the award, these people decided that their individual worldviews is something like an absolute truth, although there is no softer science as economics.
I am sure that a scholar of your caliber must see the roots of things; namely, why we need play the Great Game of Ontology. As all good games, it has its ultimate goal - to unify all individual worldviews into one Global WorldView, providing an ontological frame and semantic foundation for all our specific meanings and senses and denotations and designations.
As an example, in OntoPaedia, an ontological universal encyclopedia, it is ruled: ''No organization is allowed to issue securities without equivalent assets.'' In contrary, no commercial entity will go for this, because there is a particular but dominant to date model of current society: ''Capitalism is Overcapitalization.'', what is well exploited by Shell as well (pun intended) 
IMHO, we need to esteem private views, but they turn out as the basic reasons of crises, wars, and other social catastrophes, what demonstrated both by historical evidences and by current global economy. To have a safeguard for such global risks, we need to develop the most integrated theories about the world, the social world inclusive, what can be given by Ontology, the science of the world.
Sorry for this gloom picture, consider it as a transient reality.
 
Next time when you feel desire for the true foreign climes, cordially invite you to the Med Paradise, the legendary island of Cyprus, to visit the Goddess of Love and Beauty in Paphos, presented with my humble residence.
 
Enjoy your time,
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

Dear Azamat,
 
Excuse the top posting, but I am in foreign climes and battling with an AZERTY keyboard.
 
What you present below is just another world view. I try hard not to tell people they have to share
my world view. But in return I do not expect others to impose their world view on me as if it was
obviously correct. I certainly do not accept the position stated below, but acknowledge that others
may wish to do so. My reasons in this case are simply that it is more complex than necessary.
 
Regards
 
Matthew West

2008/9/14 Richard H. McCullough <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris
 
You're trying to apply the terminology of English grammar
to mKR, and it doesn't fit.  Let me try to give you an
intuitive sense of the mKR terminology.  Also, you could
read Rand's "Intro. to Objectivist Epistemology" for a lot
more detail.
 
"attribute" is a static property of a single existent.
If the existent is a person, this would correspond to
an English adjective.  If the existent is an action,
the attribute would correspond to an English adverb.
Attributes do not change form for any reason -- the
same word is used in all contexts.  For example,
"happy" is always used -- never "happiness"
 
 
"action" is a dynamic property of a single entity.
It is a concept of change -- usually in both space
and time.  I idealize an action as having a beginning
and ending, and a space-time extent in between.
The optional prepositional phrases that apply to
actions (and commands and methods) are
	out  action products
	of   action domains
	with action characteristics
	od   action direct objects
	from action initial characteristics
	to   action final characteristics
Actions don't change form for any reason.
"walk" is always used -- never "walks", "walked", "walking".
Some Spanish-English comparisons that stick in my mind are
    Yo tengo hambre/sed/sueno/frio.
    I am hungry/thirsty/tired/cold.
 
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> Chris
>>
>> mKE, the program which implements mKR, enhances intelligence
>> by assisting a human in creating/updating/searching knowledge
>> bases.
>>
>> mKR is integrating syntax and semantics without ambiguity.
>>
>> John has happy;  implies that "happy" is an attribute.
>
> But "happy" is not an attribute (unless you are using the word
> "attribute" idiosyncratically); it is an adjective.  Intuitively, it
> *expresses* an attribute.  But you have no semantics, so there's no
> telling what you have in mind by an attribute with any precision.
>
>> I do walk done;  implies that "walk" is an action
>
> "walk" a verb.  And what is an action?
>
>>        "done" is useful because "walk" may be followed
>>        by many optional prepositional phrases.
>
> I'm not sure why that makes it particularly useful.  You can achieve all
> the same effects in any of several more standard ways.  Have you studied
> other KR languages to see how similar things are done?
>
>> P.S.
>> Spanish, and several other non-English languages,
>> use "has" for attributes instead of "is".
>
> I'm not certain what you mean by saying they use "has" for attributes,
> but I'm guessing you mean that they use it for the *attribution* of
> properties to individuals.  That is so, but they do not use it *instead
> of* "is".  Spanish works pretty much like English here in the use of the
> so-called "is" of attribution -- "John is happy" is translated as "John
> es feliz", "es", of course, being the third person conjugation of "ser",
> "to be".  However, as in English (and most western languages), one can
> use "has" to attribute a property to an individual by using an
> adjectival nominalization, that is, the nominal form of an adjective.
> Thus, in English, we can say (somewhat awkwardly) "John has happiness".
> And in Spanish (I think -- very rusty here), "John tiene felicidad".
> But the grammar of these two forms of attribution is quite different and
> the use of "has" for attribution is rather stilted and uncommon.  There
> is a fairly extensive body of literature on this and related topics in
> linguistics and logic that I can point you to if you are interested.
>
>> "done" is used in many modern programming languages.
>
> So I've heard. ;-)
>
> -chris

> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

>
>


_________________________________________________________________
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





--
Regards

Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/



_________________________________________________________________
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
 

_________________________________________________________________
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)

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