[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] presentism, etc.

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 19:40:49 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <979550.68632.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Peter,
You do not have to be a potato to relaize that the input to your eyes is on the 
retina, a flat surface. The fact that you nhave two inputs in the two eyes does 
not change this truism, the questioin if how the brain processes those stimuli. 
As far as I know it turns them around, condenses and transforms them, just as 
camera would do. The further processing of the pictures is a function of your 
brainwork and knowledge, just as chunking the input in general or being color 
blind, yet work on those input. As we cannot use our body to "broadcast stereo 
pictures" in return, we need to produce an output in2D, for sharing knowledge, 
on disks, tapes and other non magnetic strogae media. becasue you want to 
that knowledge in an organised fashion, not necessarily by traversing graphs. 
Graphs with connection between nodes that do not represent any hint to the 
relations of objects in reality as they are limited to Boole algebra, whereas 
there are other algebras that may better suit the job are a poblem, just as the 
tags used today to "characterise" the content of a document.
the identity of objects over time; 
Objcts are born in spacetime and they start their "existence" by moving in 
spacetime. Thius very moment when you take an invetory of an object in 
(e.g. on counting them), you have two coordinates to connect/recognize your 
object to. Thus to have a short cut you either skip marking time or marking 
location as the other parameter may be looked up, or in fact time and location 
may be converted to each other.Thiose two parameters make the existence of an 
object specific, hence to bear a unique identifier.
the proper axiomatization of the concept of set. In natural language the use of 
quantifiers does not stand the probe for reality, as the in a cummulative 
hierarchy the total number of members is a property of the class, which if not 
defined, the concept is not properly defined either.
The extension of a concept is supposed to list a number of objects that may be 
regarded as examples as they display the properties of the class (and many 
in the intension.
However it would be difficult not to agree that when you see an object for the 
first time, you concurrently see that both in terms of being specific and 
generic. Even if you do not know its name, or you have no concept of the 
in yourt mind. So check out what happens in your name giving exercise. You go 
through the process I have already referred to in the attachment. To say 
something that makes sesne you have to be specific enough, which depends on 
audience, i.e. their knowledge.
Well I do speak for myself and I also believe you. My question: do you really 
believe that nD representations of objects in ontologies would result in 
modularity, interoperability, integration, etc. that this forum is allegedly 
seeking? Or do you believe that manufacturing donald duck toys that can sing 
popey's tune will turn potatoes into melons as augmenting intelligence of the 
human race is visualised by e.g. a bootstrap instititute if I remember rightly?
Ferenc    (01)

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    (02)

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