[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:42:23 +0300
Message-id: <20110729164223.13670d9rm3oc6njz.astyrman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lainaus sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx:    (01)

> The words 'tangible' and 'intangible' do not admit
> gradations of variability.  There is nothing semi-tangible or almost    (02)

The dichotomy to tangible and intangible is also fyzzy in a certain  
sense. We can start with naturalism: everything that exists in  
whatever way is physical. But physical can be divided into two  
categories: concrete/tangible/not mental and  
abstract/intangible/mental. The dichotomy is not absolute in the sense  
that it is agent-related at least in principle. In principle, a  
human's thought could be tangible to a certain sort of an agent. But  
this is only in principle; the dichotomy works very well in practice.    (03)

-Avril    (04)

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    (05)

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