[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] triadic sign relations in practice

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:59:43 -0700
Message-id: <20100824175949.BE581138D0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Ferenc,


I’m trying to understand why you apply space-time to identity recognition.  If Aristotle had an idea (the syllogism), that idea is the same one we use today, and often debate the intricacies of on this list.  


Since it’s the same idea, but with a different space-time boundary, it seems identical to itself for that reason – time and space do not bound abstract concept objects like they sometimes do with physical objects.  But even there, the pottery shard made in Egypt 5,000 years ago is still the same pottery shard found by some Indiana Jones in 1935.  So even there, the time space bracketing isn’t necessary or even useful, IMHO.  


Time and space are good bracketing properties for some applications, but not for all kinds of objects when identity is being modeled, IMHO.  


Re the observer’s relationship with the object, it seems that the <sign,interpretANT,interpretER> says it all; potentially, everyone could interpret any sign in any way they please.  So identity in that universe has to be conditioned on who is doing the identification.  






Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 1:56 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] triadic sign relations in practice


Following the law of identity an object is identical with itself if it exists at a particular place in space and a particular point of time. This is like duplicating an object. So therefore two seemingly identical objects are only identical with each other, if we disregard space an time parameters. This is called abstarction, disaambiguation, decontextualization, etc.

But if you accept that an object has two facets, namely form and content, or if you accept that no claim on identity may be made without including the aspect of the observer, then it must be clear, that either you have a new situation when the object is seen from a different aspect by the same observer, or you have another observer. Both of those aspects mean that you have a relation between the observer and the object observed, in other word the observer relates the object to him/herself.

Since objects have names (even concepts do) which are forms, we are faced with the problem of defining and harmonizing the associated content (usually properties) in each observer to achive mutual understanding.

I admit that space and time parameters may be dropped for some purpose, but as Physics teaches us, the aspect of the observer cannot. Otherwise you are all talking to yourselves.



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)

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