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

[sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Chris,

I'm traveling now, and I'm not using  my friendly old Thunderbird.  So I saw Matthew's note before yours.  My answer is the same.

CM
> Not that I'm a big fan of such approaches, but by quantifying over
> possible worlds a great deal involving intentionality can be dealt with
> extensionally ? cf., notably, the work of David Lewis. Of course, there is
> great controversy surrounding the adequacy of such approaches, but it is
> at the least misleading simply to assert that extensional representations
> "cannot deal with anything that involves intentionality" as if this were
> established fact.

As I said to Matthew, those possible worlds exist only in somebody's imagination.  And they had to be generated from  some kind of idea or specification, which  is purely intensional.  As Michael Dunn showed, that specification  (or law) is sufficient to generate any result that could be generated from the set of worlds.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)