Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com (01)
John, Frank, Rich wrote: (02)
>>FK:> This is why now it was high time to see that no ontology
>> is correct without mental operations identified within the FO
>> language system, of which abstraction is one operation that
>> results in a property.
>
> I agree that mental operations should be considered in any kind of
> ontology
> that attempts to be comprehensive. But given that
> nobody knows exactly how the brain works, it impossible for
> anyone today to develop a truly comprehensive ontology.
>
> In any case, a child can learn language far better and faster
> than any computer system today, and there is now evidence
> that the child has much, if any built-in ontology. But by
> the time a child starts to use language, he or she already has
> a lot of low-level facts and models about how the world works,
> the people in it, his or her own body, and how all those things
> interact. But that ontology almost certainly does not include
> much knowledge about mental operations.
>
> Reasons like this are among the many, many reasons why I have
> maintained that any upper-level ontology should have very few
> axioms -- because the more axioms you have the greater the
> likelihood of error, contradiction, and confusion.
>
> For detailed reasoning, you do need axioms. But both people and
> computers do detailed reasoning only at the very low levels
> required for solving specific problems.
>
> Summary: We need an upper level that along the lines of a
> sparsely axiomatized and systematized WordNet. The detailed
> resoning is always done in the low-level microtheories, of
> which we need an enormous number.
>
> John
>
_________________________________________________________________ (03)
John, (04)
Did you mean to assert that there IS evidence of built-in ONTOLOGY based on
some research? Or is this a misspelling and you meant IS NOT? There seems
to be "evidence" in Jung, anthropology, other sources of a built-in ontology
of mom, dad, bro, sis, old man, old woman etc. But the built-in ontology
hypothesis is pretty sketchy at best, IMHO. (05)
-Rich (06)
> In any case, a child can learn language far better and faster
> than any computer system today, and there is now evidence
> that the child has much, if any built-in ontology. (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|