Hi Ron,
True, priceless artifacts won’t be
worth much money though, when gold hits $2,000 per ounce. So I would rather
stick with priced artifacts than priceless ones. There’s more money in
it. Lots of movie fantasy in the priceless ones, but little spendable cash for
most of the Indiana Jones’.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
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 Ron Wheeler
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010
11:26 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
triadic sign relations in practice
On 24/08/2010 1:59 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
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.
Are you sure? The
pottery shard made in Egypt
5,000 years ago was trash from a broken pot. The current view of that would be
more along the lines of priceless artifact detailing an important time in human
history.
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.
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
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