ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:54:43 +0100
Message-id: <4C7469D3.6060007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Aren't you in so doing, conflating a "thing in itself" with a "thing as 
defined in some context" i.e. ordinary old fashioned first versus second 
order concepts? This is the same as for example saying that a person may 
be a mother and a pilot but is still the same person, or that a business 
entity may be at one time a securities issuer, a contract counterparty 
and a customer.    (01)

Both the first- and second-order concepts are meaningful terms and so 
potentially have a place in some meaningful model of the world.    (02)

Mike    (03)

Ron Wheeler wrote:
> On 24/08/2010 1:59 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ferenc,
>>
>> Iím 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 itís the same idea, but with a different space-time boundary, 
>> it seems identical to itself for that reason Ė 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 isnít 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 observerís 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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *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.
>>
>> Ferenc
>>
>>
>>  
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>      (04)


-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd. 
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068    (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>