Hi Doug, (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
> Sent: 11 July 2011 00:53
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications
> are fuzzy)
>
> The intangibles that we are discussing are mental artifacts which are
shared
> by multiple people. (02)
So, if I understand correctly, when one person makes a promise to another,
you believe that this creates a (single) mental artefact - the promise -
that has temporal but not spatial extent and is shared by both people. And
both parties can somehow perceive this (same, single) mental artefact.
I presume that this artefact ceases to exist when the last person stops
sharing it - as you intimate below. Or maybe a more complicated story is
required - for example, if the promise is written down, forgotten and then
the memory recreated when the written promise is read.
I presume that these mental artefacts are in addition to any memories the
two parties may have of making the promise - which presumably each has and
are not, strictly speaking, shared as we cannot see into other people's
memories. (03)
BTW my goal here is just to tease out the ontological assumptions - to build
a picture of the ontological architecture - so that one can try and identify
the pros and cons of the choices made.
One of the cons here seems to be the assumption that our brains/minds have
some special ability to perceive this (same, single) mental artefact. If we
could do that then this would be a simple means of resolving arguments about
what was actually promised - but this never seems to happen. Sure, a person
can remember making the promise - or consult their dairy and recreate the
memory - but there is no guarantee that the two people's memories will be
the same - in fact, they often aren't. (04)
> Any causation is due to mental activity which "causes"
> the thinker to do something, not do something, or accept or question some
> information. (05)
I think this begs the question, as it assumes that intangible mental
artefacts can cause physical events - which is what I suggested needs
explanation. This is a well-researched problem, see e.g.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-causation/ (06)
> There would be no causation if no one were aware of any
> portion of the mental artifact and no physical record existed so that no
one
> could later become aware of it. If several people had partial knowledge,
> such that parts of the intangible could be determined, it would seem
> improper to consider that the intangible ceased to exist. (07)
Agreed, if one was going down that route.
Also, one would need to revisit the 'mental' qualifier to handle cases such
as program trading where no human (and so no mental?) is involved.
(Explanations along the lines of delegated intention may come in here.) (08)
>
> People treat contracts, textual conceptual works, games with rules, laws,
> accounts, rights, etc. as existing things, so it is appropriate for an
ontology to
> do so as well. (09)
Agreed, I am not sure anyone has suggested anything else. (010)
> One could also model them as processes that involve their
> creators and participants, but the process so described would be very
> complex. (011)
I do not follow the argument here. Also in practice, they are not "very
complex".
Maybe you are making some assumptions about processes. I introduced the term
as it is sometimes used for ontologies where the distinction between
substance and process is collapsed - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ . What motivated this
approach was reducing unnecessary complexity. (012)
>By Occam's Razor, it is useful to consider such intangibles to exist. (013)
I suspect Occam's razor cuts the other way (see above). Why introduce
intangibles when they are not needed? (014)
> Even if the process model were able to easily explain everything about
> intangible objects, because people consider them as objects, an ontology
> that models what people think about a subject area should also consider
> them as objects, imho. (015)
Agreed. But again I don't think anyone has suggested anything else. Unless
you are assuming that 'processes' are second class objects (see references
above). (016)
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> On Sat, July 9, 2011 16:31, Cory Casanave said:
> >
> > Chris,
> > I extracted and responded to some of your key points about intangibles.
> >
> > [cp] This seems to be a statement that one *cannot* treat intangibles
> > such as contracts in the way I have described - that one has no choice
> > but to accept that they are intangibles. However, this kind of
> > 'process' ontology is commonplace - indeed mainstream in many
> > Anglophone philosophy departments. I think you need to present
> > arguments as to why this kind of manoeuvre is impossible (and I wish
> > you luck), rather than just stating it is the case.
> > [cbc] I can see treating intangibles as processes as long as the
> > process is inclusive of the full life-cycle and effect of the
> > intangible. In this case the agreement is a process and that
> > agreement has lasting impact in the involved parties lasting until the
> > agreement is satisfied or terminated. However this is just as
> > abstract as treating the agreement as an ongoing obligation. What I
> > don't think works is trying to pin all such intangibles to some
> > physical object, such as the paper they are written on.
> >
> > [cp] Have you ever seen an (ocean) wave or a (snow) avalanche or rain
> > falling?
> > These are classical examples of processes. The use of the term
'tangible'
> > might be misleading as it implies touch - a better term of art is
> > 'concrete' implying spatial and temporal extension. It might be less
> > 'subjective' to move away from questions about 'seeing' to looking at
> > spatial and temporal extensions.
> > [cbc] I have seen these things hand inferred the existence of some
> > process that caused them, I didn't see the process. I have also seen
> > a person getting a traffic ticket and inferred the existence of an
> > (intangible) law that was broken. I don't see a lot of difference.
> >
> > [cp] But I was asking for an explanation how something intangible
> > (more accurately, 'abstract') could have these tangible (more
> > accurately,
> > 'concrete') effects. As I understand it, there is no scientific
> > evidence of intangible/abstract things having a causal effect on
> > tangible/concrete things. [Note the contract is not intangible in the
> > same sense that one might want to classify gases or magnetic fields as
> > intangible, because we cannot feel them. With different sensory
> > apparatus, we could sense gases, etc. I'd be interested in the kind of
> > sensory equipment that could see contracts.] [cbc] How do intangibles
> > has tangible effect? Not sure I know, I suspect it has something to
> > do with behavior. However the effect is as apparent
> > as gravity. If I were to represent a contract as the signed piece of
> > paper, how would this piece of paper in a filing cabinet have impact
> > on physical objects in a different space and time? This seems at least
> > as magical.
> >
> > [cp] How often have you had disagreements when modelling? This seems
> > to be the most common feature of any modelling exercise. Anything that
> > reduces disagreement (in a healthy way) must be good.
> > For me the fact is most of the time people do not agree at all. I have
> > been in modelling sessions where people spent days trying to agree
> > what a system was - and that is at least sometimes tangible. The only
> > way we approached some kind of agreement was by focussing on concrete
> > examples of systems.
> > [cbc] No, everyone always agrees with my models completely : ) In
> > reality, there are always differing points of view - one of the values
> > of modeling is making these visible. One such long and unresolved
> > problem was in a
> > DM2 session using (an interpretation of) BORO where it got all wrapped
> > around the axel trying to represent some simple SOA concepts such as a
> > service contract. The attempt to pin this to something in space/time
> > made an understandable concept troublesome. So any methodology can
> > run into problems - perhaps if you were their it would have gone
> > better, but any methodology works better with the masters present.
> >
> > In summary, a methodology that makes the physical explicit is fine,
> > these are the anchors for the intangibles. But I contend that to
> > model the situations we have today, in human affairs, the intangible
> > are just as real as rocks.
> >
> > -Cory
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 7:27 PM
> > To: Cory Casanave
> > Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >
> > Hi Cory,
> >
> > I forgot to hit reply *all* - and so did not include the forum - maybe
> > we should post this back to the forum.
> >
> > I think we are arguing at different levels.
> >
> > My point is architectural, if you will.
> > When deciding on one's ontology one can choose whether to include
> > intangibles or not. (You seem to be arguing this choice does not
> > exist.)
> >
> > However, if one does choose to include intangibles, there is - as I
> > said before - a problem *in principle* of explaining how one can know
> > something one cannot perceive in any way at all.
> >
> > Further comments below.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 08 July 2011 23:08
> >> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >> That something may be difficult or have problems does not make it go
> >> away.
> >> See [cbc] Below.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 4:50 PM
> >> To: Cory Casanave
> >> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >>
> >> Hi Cory,
> >>
> >> > IMHO Trying to find spatial/temporal foundations for all concepts
> >> > confuses the categorizations.
> >>
> >> [cp] In what way? Have you an example?
> >>
> >> [cbc] The contract example seems sufficient.
> >
> > [cp] As I offered what seemed to me a simple explanation of what one
> > is without invoking an intangibles, I cannot see how this is a good
> > example of confusing the categorisations. A little explanation may
> > clear things up.
> >
> >>
> >> [cp] I think the argument goes the other way.
> >> If you elect to have intangible/abstract objects, there is the old
> >> problem
> > of
> >> how you explain how we know about them (is there some special kind of
> >> perception) and how they can affect anything (telekinesis?).
> >>
> >>
> >> [cbc] That it may be difficult of have problems does not make it go
> >> away.
> >> How we know about intangibles is indirect, by being involved with
> >> them
> >> - that involvement implies the process but the involvement is not the
> >> thing.
> >
> > [cp] Your argument seems to be that there are intangibles so we have
> > to accept them.
> > My point is that we have a choice between explaining these as
> > intangibles or as concrete - and am asking about the pros and cons.
> >
> >> Being involved in creating a contract does not make the process the
> > contract
> >> any more than being involved in creating a painting makes the process
> >> the painting. We also know it exists based on the evidence of it -
> >> be it
> > written,
> >> in human memory or digital memory. But, that evidence is not the
> >> thing either.
> >
> > [cp] This seems to be a statement that one *cannot* treat intangibles
> > such as contracts in the way I have described - that one has no choice
> > but to accept that they are intangibles. However, this kind of
> > 'process' ontology is commonplace - indeed mainstream in many
> > Anglophone philosophy departments. I think you need to present
> > arguments as to why this kind of manoeuvre is impossible (and I wish
> > you luck), rather than just stating it is the case.
> >
> >>
> >> However, I am curious how you "see" a process or how this is more
> >> real, I have never seen one - only evidence that they have happened.
> >> Are you sure a process is tangible?
> >>
> >
> > Have you ever seen an (ocean) wave or a (snow) avalanche or rain
falling?
> > These are classical examples of processes.
> > The use of the term 'tangible' might be misleading as it implies touch
> > - a better term of art is 'concrete' implying spatial and temporal
extension.
> > It might be less 'subjective' to move away from questions about 'seeing'
> > to looking at spatial and temporal extensions.
> >
> >> What you think of as intangible, the contract, may have real and
> >> tangible impact on the tangible me.
> >
> > [cp] But I was asking for an explanation how something intangible
> > (more accurately, 'abstract') could have these tangible (more
> > accurately,
> > 'concrete') effects. As I understand it, there is no scientific
> > evidence of intangible/abstract things having a causal effect on
> > tangible/concrete things. [Note the contract is not intangible in the
> > same sense that one might want to classify gases or magnetic fields as
> > intangible, because we cannot feel them. With different sensory
> > apparatus, we could sense gases, etc. I'd be interested in the kind of
> > sensory equipment that could see contracts.]
> >
> > This is sufficient evidence for me that something
> >> exists. The same is true of a process.
> >>
> >> [cp] And, even if you cannot do this, how do you secure agreement
> >> about what they are - what kind of arguments do you appeal to.
> >> You or I can stipulate rules for when they exist, but why should
> >> anyone agree with either of us?
> >>
> >> [cbc] We agree for our own reasons, I don't see this as relevant to
> >> being
> > able
> >> to communicate or reason about intangible things. The fact is we DO
> >> agree,
> > I
> >> assume we do so because agreement causes positive results, perhaps it
> >> helps us with a pretty woman.
> >>
> >
> > [cp] How often have you had disagreements when modelling? This seems
> > to be the most common feature of any modelling exercise. Anything that
> > reduces disagreement (in a healthy way) must be good.
> > For me the fact is most of the time people do not agree at all. I have
> > been in modelling sessions where people spent days trying to agree
> > what a system was - and that is at least sometimes tangible. The only
> > way we approached some kind of agreement was by focussing on concrete
> > examples of systems.
> >
> >>
> >> Analysis is much easier if things are concrete - not to say that it
> >> always
> > easy
> >> to work out in what way they are.
> >>
> >> [cbc] Agreed - concrete things are much easier to analyze (not
> >> simple, but easier). So then should we dismiss the intangible for
being
> hard?
> >>
> >> I would also agree that in terms of methodology it is important to
> > identify
> >> processes and concrete things related to the intangible so as to
> >> better understand the intangible - but I would use these as part of
> >> the
> > description
> >> of the intangible, not to deny it exists.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Cory
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> > Sent: 08 July 2011 21:35
> >> > To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> >> > Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >> >
> >> > Chris,
> >> > Re: So, for example, if you destroy the paper, does the law say you
> >> > have destroyed the contract?
> >> > No (personal experience - Hurricane Andrew) The paper is evidence
> >> > (and a
> >> > record) of the contract, an agreement between parties. Other
> >> > evidence may be binding.
> >> > IMHO Trying to find spatial/temporal foundations for all concepts
> >> > confuses the categorizations.
> >> >
> >> > John,
> >> > In relation to your overall causing of trouble - what is the
> >> > consequence
> >> of
> >> > this conclusion? In particular how does it impact our ability to
> >> understand
> >> > or relate information and/or the world?
> >> >
> >> > If I were to have a category "Pretty Woman", it seems clear that
> >> > the set described by this category is subjective (for both the term
> >> > "pretty" and "Woman"). Yet, it is a common category used every day.
> >> > What can we say about this category of categories Vs those that can
> >> > be
> >> quantified?
> >> >
> >> > -Cory
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-
> forum-
> >> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:02 PM
> >> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> >> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >> >
> >> > Mike,
> >> >
> >> > Is the paper in the vault the contract - or the record of the
> >> contract?
> >> > So, for example, if you destroy the paper, does the law say you
> >> > have destroyed the contract?
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > [mailto:ontolog-forum- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >> > > Mike Bennett
> >> > > Sent: 07 July 2011 17:37
> >> > > To: [ontolog-forum]
> >> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy
> >> > >
> >> > > David,
> >> > >
> >> > > There is no problem describing financial products ontologically.
> >> > > Calipers are not a requirement. All financial products are
> >> > > contracts, and contracts are a real thing regardless of whether
> >> > > they consist of paper in
> >> > a
> >> > > vault (as a few still do) or are maintained electronically.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you don't think contracts are real, try breaking one :)
> >> > >
> >> > > The dimensions along which they are defined are, as you rightly
> >> > > suggest, where it gets interesting. One look at the ISO 10962
> >> > > Classification of
> >> > Financial
> >> > > Instruments standard will show what a challenge it is to try and
> >> > articificially
> >> > > shoe-horn the whole lot into one dimension - you simply can't.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike
> >> > >
> >> > > On 07/07/2011 16:21, David Eddy wrote:
> >> > > > John -
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 2011-07-06, at 12:45 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
> >> > > >> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
> >> > > >> foundation for a "standard ontology".
> >> > > > Agreed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My view of (imagined) reality has been largely financial
> >> > > > services (e.g. mutual funds, brokerage, banking,& various
> >> > > > forms of
> > insurance).
> >> > > > In my career, I have only worked directly for a single firm
> >> > > > that actually made a physical product (junk jewelry)...
> >> > > > otherwise everything has been paper pushing, describing various
> >> > > > facets of non-dimensional products.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Quite naturally, since these industries are all conjured out of
> >> > > > thin air, there are no natural laws to impose organizational
> > discipline.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > From what I've seen, "organization" is largely the last
> >> > > > minute panic to make the next deadline. Does tend to leave a
> >> > > > chaotic residue which only gets worse over time.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Since this ontology interest has arisen, it has been rattling
> >> > > > around in the back of my mind if ontologies can be applied to
> >> > > > things like financial "products."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Personally I vacillate between describing financial "products"
> >> > > > as either "non-dimensional" or "N-dimensional." In any case
> >> > > > these products are stuff that cannot be put on a scale&
> >> > > > weighted or have a caliper applied to them. It's just
> >> > > > information which as far as I know we have no idea how to
> >> > > > measure other than silly things like "lines of code."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ___________________
> >> > > > David Eddy
> >> > > > deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________
> >> > > _
> >> > > > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________
> >> > > _
> >> > > 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
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> ________________________________________________________________
> >> > _
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "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.
> =============================================================
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
> (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)
|