Jawit, (01)
Just a comment on one point you made:
[JK] >
> When I look over the distinctions, like Physical versus Abstract, I
> can only come up with a small number of inferences, and certainly nothing
that I
> would pay good money to have a person answer. It may be true that I can't
touch a
> mathematical formula, and that I can touch a doll accessory, but I'm not
going to
> pay anyone to make that specific inference on my behalf. This distinction
is one I
> agree the computer can record, but it can't make the distinction. And just
> who would pay someone to go classify all of creation SOLELY for that
distinction
> so the computer can use it in inferences ?
> (02)
The only two distinctions I find useful in the "abstract-physical" divide
do not actually use an 'abstract' catagory per se. A PhysicalObject is an
object with mass. This is useful, because specifying the mass can tell us
things about how an object may be perceived or handled. A MentalObject is
an object without mass that is created by the mind of some CognitiveAgent.
That also tells us useful things, and more useful things when we describe
how MentalObjects may be represented in symbolic form. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|