Chris P , John, (01)
John F. Sowa wrote: (02)
>>> The intangibles that we are discussing are mental artifacts which
>>> are shared by multiple people.
> The term "mental artifact" is another philosophical virus.
> Don't use it. And most definitely avoid saying that two or more
> people could ever "share" anything mental. (03)
Yes, an most important aspect. (04)
>> 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.
> In Peirce's terminology, you would say that a written contract is
> a token of a sign type. Whatever occurs in the brain when somebody
> thinks about the contract is another token of the same type -- but
> it might not be an exact replica of the written token.
> When two people talk about the contract, each of them has a neural token
> in the brain. Those tokens are physical, and there is no sharing of
> those tokens. But each token can be a fairly accurate instance of the
> same type as the written token. (05)
>> When deciding on the architecture for one's ontology one can choose whether
>> to include intangibles or not.
>> Then one needs to motivate this choice.
>> In the case of intangibles/abstract object, the classical hurdle is
>> explaining*in principle* how one can know something one cannot perceive in
>> any way at all.
Chris P. (08)
Im not really sure all details debated here, so few comments and opinions
* In legal terms both acts and state of mind are important. Neither can be
* An agreement occurs when the two tokens are aligned in the minds of two or
more persons and the both believe that the other also know you know.
A promise could be externalized (using tools such spoken sounds) through a
Speech act ( from Scott A. Moore work on FLBC) (011)
"promise (promise, swear, vow; also contract, bet, swear that, guarantee
that, guarantee x, surrender, invite) In uttering e, S promises H to A if S
1. the belief that his utterance obligates him to A,
2. the intention to A, and
3. the intention that H believe that Sís utterance obligates S to A and that S
intends to A.
* A contract is often associated with propose-accept-reject ontop of an
agreement. so what is discussed, an agreement, agreeing or written contracts?
All three are different. (013)
"assentive (accept, agree, assent, concur) In uttering e, S assents to the
claim that P if S expresses:
1. the belief that P, as claimed by H (or as otherwise under discussion),
2. the intention (perhaps already fulfilled) that H believe that P." (014)
> cp] Of course, trying to pin everything on the paper record is not a good
> strategy - and this is not what is being suggested.
> However, "trying to pin all such intangibles to some physical object" or
> more exactly, deciding whether to work with tangibles rather than
> intangibles is exactly the architectural choice one is faced with - and if
> the choice is made to work with tangibles, there are standard ways to
> proceed (i.e. in implementing the architectural choice). (015)
* An oral agreement is valid event if there is not written (physical) record of
the conversation. Even if one person dies many tries to honor their duties. (016)
* In efficient legal system, written contracts has their additional values,
such as a tool for memory recollection and in dispute resolution. Written
languages tend to deteriorate slower than memories of spoken sounds/words.
(unless one records them) (017)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (019)