Re: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That is exactly what i think of syllogisms and the present mumbo jumbo about ontlogies.

1. If you take Uta Priss method called FCA, then it is clear, that the famous syllogism is nothing but looking up two lines in two tables

where extension includes all people , including the philosophers

and intension includes properties like human, mortal etc

.

I also agree with John, who says:

I enthusiastically applaud that comment.  I like your concluding point, which deserves a line by itself: Ontology is fractal

because, you should realize that there is one spatial dimension only and one temproral dimension. In space you have infinite directions, out of which you prefer integer directiosn (3), whereas fractals are not integer directions.

You also should remember that all you write is represented in 2D, in a plane and that everything exists in spacetime, so it has tenpral and spatial coordinates as final identiifiers, whether you use them or not. But it is clear that they are going to be used more than today.

You7 are all charmed by abstractions thatb is why your ontolopgies are not grounded. Even Uta priss thinks in a charmed way writzing about her rsearch interets. In contrast, this is what i claim:

 

Unlike Uta I believe that information objects, just as any object by
definition, if they exist, they exist in spacetime, hence they have
dimensions, i.e. physical properties. Concepts as abstract entites
just as numbers do have boundaries, their start and stop dates in
time, and while they exist in time, they also exist in space (have a
pattern and take up space) to be identified and described in terms of
those spatial coordinates, no matter how large or small, or located
inside or outside your body.
But I do not see that the property abstract may be contrasted to
physical (i.e. tangible) as abstract and specific are the proper pair
and they only indicate a difference in the eye of the beholder, where
someone in the know finds something specific, so understandable, while
another one finds the same thing as abstract, so incomprehensible.

Properties for instance are the product of abstraction (an operation)
derived from analysing an object and they may be listed as the
intension of an object. By the very nature all concepts are
abstracted, hencethey may be called abstract (a misnomer), but only,
if you do not know the content of a concept. The form of a concept is
the (call)word itself, or the name, and the content of the concept is
what you have in your mind about, or in connection with it. If you
follow logic, then you and me can synchronize or align that knowledge
with the help of semantic analysis, a step of which is to see a
concept (object) in terms of extensions and intensions as yourself
know it better.

If you see that objects, properties and relations (semantic primitive
triplets) are sufficent components for classifying anything in this
world (besides using semantic primitive twin concepts, such as
quantity and quality, form and content, general and particular,
abstract and specific) into a system where - in contrast with former  .

abstract and specific) into a system where - in contrast with former
systems of classifications where objects and properties prevailed with
relations covering mainly spatial extensions - relations that are
basically verbs and hidden in most of the knowledge representations,
and should therefore be extended by introducing the concept of
cognitive operations into the existing static model of conceptual
structures in order to generate such mental objects - then she would
realize that there is way to connect alls the concepts into a unified
and integrated whole, a solution that ontologists, linguists and many
other scientists are still after. Then the issue whether a different
edition of a book is a single object, or not, should not be a question
any more.

Frank

---

From: Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ontolog-forum <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 15 April, 2009 7:10:00 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] web-syllogism-and-worldview

I came across this article while using Twine. This sounds a lot like some of the discussions on this forum. Although I don't have a particular position on the issue, I am very interested in comments.

http://www.twine.com/item/11nf8n6bg-csn/shirky-the-semantic-web-syllogism-and-worldview

BTW, Twine seems to be a good format for forums like this one - better than Wiki (IMH0)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)