[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology Project Organization:

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jawit Kien <jawit.kien@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:48:21 -0500
Message-id: <9f9644bb0905121048j61f48658hdb7e541103ded677@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jawit,
> 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 ?
>  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.
> Pat
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416    (01)

When I am classifying things, I find the distinction Abstract-Physical is
useful in lots of ways. I think of Abstract as describing Intangible things
in general, from describing a configuration of switches or a ghost, to
a mathematical formula. I wonder if it is worthwhile making the distinction
between representable and not-representable.  I can imagine an infinite
series, but can only represent it as a set of values and some kind of
generation process. So technically, the infinite series as itself is
unrepresentable because I can't store infinity in a finite memory, but
practically it is representable because at any one time you don't need
to have it present in all of its infinite glory.    (02)

Similarly, I can imagine something like "the ineffable lightness of being"
as not being representable, (since ineffable by definition means
but I can represent and store descriptions of this "thing", even if the thing
itself can't be represented.    (03)

So I don't think PhysicalObject + MentalObject is a partition of all possible
things.    (04)

JK    (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)

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