On Sun, March 25, 2012 13:52, Rich Cooper wrote:
> doug foxvog wrote: (01)
>> Or course, what can be physically measured depends upon context. In
>> various contexts, things beyond a certain (temporal or linear) scale would
>> be out of context and not part of that context's physical reality. And,
>> of course, context is a conceptual, not physical concept -- although it
>> may be given a physical definition. (02)
> One way to view context is as a collection of properties and relations
> about a situation. In that view, context is possibly physical, and
> possibly conceptual, but not necessarily either. (03)
I meant that a context is a conceptual construct. It seems that you are
referring to the physical definition of the context, which i referred to
in the next sentence. (04)
> For example, if I am recording objects and their properties in a database,
> then a query (05)
A query is a conceptual object and has a conceptual structure. If the
query is seen as merely a string of 1s and 0s, it can not be used until
it is interpreted to have some meaning by mapping it to some conceptual
structure. (06)
> which returns a situation description may have either
> conceptual structure (if they are MY concepts that were recorded) or
> physical structure (if the returned values are solely physical SENSOR
> measurements). (07)
Sure. The conceptual context may include in its physical definition a
conceptually selected time frame and a conceptually selected set of
sensors and their readings. The individual readings may be more than
merely binary values, but given a conceptual meaning, for example,
temperature in degrees Kelvin, pressure in Pascals, time in milliseconds
offset from T0, etc. (08)
> In actual practice, a context can mix both physical and subjective
> ('conceptual' if you prefer) estimates of reality, and usually does in
> most practical database applications. (09)
I do not use 'conceptual' to mean 'subjective'. (010)
I think that this is really the key to the discussion. (011)
I define 'conceptual' as something that is a construct of one or more minds. (012)
> So, IMHO, situations are every bit as slippery and subjective as concepts.
> Situations are just more articulated since they usually comprise both
> concepts and sensor readings. (013)
First, i was not considering contexts to be situations. They are quite
different things. (014)
Having said that, i agree that situations are slippery concepts. Their
boundaries are subjective. The temporal and spatial limits of a storm
are defined arbitrarily. What situations and events count as subevents
or sub-situations of a war? How are breaks in thought considered when
examining the situation of my responding to this email? (015)
-- doug (016)
> -Rich
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rich Cooper
>
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> ... (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)
|