Azamat,
Once more recommend to take into account the Pragmatism's Umwelt (
http://home.comcast.net/~sharov/biosem/txt/umwelt.html) with its
"subjective worlds" and the need to interact different Umwelts with
finding some common ideas, notions, terms.
Suppose this is close to the problem of "common" Ontologies . (01)
Best,
Leonid - http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it (02)
> 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 -----
> From: Matthew West
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> 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 characteristicsActions 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|