[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:26:25 -0400
Message-id: <4E1A8981.7050903@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Doug,    (01)

I don't disagree with that.    (02)

> The intangibles that we are discussing are mental artifacts which are
> shared by multiple people.  Any causation is due to mental activity
> which "causes" the thinker to do something, not do something, or accept
> or question some information.    (03)

But the point I was trying to make is that Peirce's theory of signs
gives you a vocabulary with a well-organized ontology that addresses
and relates all the issues discussed in this thread.    (04)

The term 'mental artifact' doesn't have any of that structure.
With a sign, you have two physical aspects:  a mark that can be
interpreted in an open-ended number of ways, and a token, which is
a mark that has been interpreted as an instance of some type.    (05)

Then the sign type belongs to the same category as any mathematical
structure.  It can be discussed objectively in the same way as a
dodecahedron, a bit pattern from any source, any kind of language,
or a specification of some kind of virtual reality.    (06)

But a sign can also be analyzed in terms of how it is perceived
and interpreted by any species, not just human.  You can analyze
a sign from any cognitive point of view you prefer -- linguistic,
psychological, neurophysiological, or psychoanalytic.    (07)

But with the category 'mental artifact' you're dumped into the
psychological pot, and you don't have any of the other options.    (08)

> By Occam's Razor, it is useful to consider such intangibles to exist.    (09)

Yes, of course.  But there is a lot more than mere existence.    (010)

When you say that a contract is a sign, you have a complete ontology
that lets you talk about the sign type as intangible, or you can talk
about a mark or a token as physical.  If you wish, you can consider
that intangible thing as a mental entity, but you can also analyze
it as objectively as any mathematical structure.    (011)

> Even if the process model were able to easily explain everything
> about intangible objects...    (012)

The ontology of signs also covers the process methods -- the term
semiosis is the process of interpreting signs, normally by creating
more signs that are implied by or associated with the previous sign.    (013)

When I recommend semiotics, I mean Peirce's version.  Many articles
about semiotics are written by people who don't know logic.  Some
of them have a specialty in other fields, such as neuroscience or
linguistics -- that means that they at least have some discipline
to fall back on.  But many things called semiotics have a high
fluff quotient.    (014)

And by the way, if you want a second opinion about Peirce's work
and its relevance to contemporary issues, see Pietarinen's site:    (015)

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pietarin/    (016)

John    (017)

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    (018)

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