ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:57:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <49164.71.163.21.40.1282708670.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, August 24, 2010 20:54, Mike Bennett said:    (01)

Re a "pottery shard made in Egypt 5,000 years ago [being] trash from a
broken pot [then but a] priceless artifact detailing an important time in
human history [now]:    (02)

> 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?    (03)

The difference is contextual, but need not be considered definitional.
What is being referred to is an object having different properties (being
valued as trash or as a priceless artifact) in different (temporal and
cultural) contexts.    (04)

> 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.    (05)

Such combination of properties could be simultaneously true in the same
context.  The two valuations of the pottery shard require different
contexts.    (06)

> Both the first- and second-order concepts are meaningful terms and so
> potentially have a place in some meaningful model of the world.    (07)

Agreed.    (08)

-- doug    (09)

> Mike
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Mike Bennett
> Director
> Hypercube Ltd.
> 89 Worship Street
> London EC2A 2BF
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting††††††††††††††+44 (0) 20 7917
9522††††††end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
> www.hypercube.co.uk
> Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (010)


=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (011)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (012)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)

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