ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis, semantics and the research program of on

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:32:18 -0700
Message-id: <EA2A49B698D644E28D6AE63FFD729AC2@Gateway>
Dear Chris,    (01)

Reality is far, far more than logic.  The purpose
of any representation of reality is so that we can
manipulate reality in ways that assist us, and so
that we can know which realities cannot be
manipulated.      (02)

In addition to logic, there is usefulness,
appreciation (beauty, attractiveness, elegance,
love, lust, ..), value (preference of one thing
over another given a choice), and all the
humanities.      (03)

Limiting ourselves to just logic is a poor
strategy, IMHO.    (04)

-Rich    (05)

Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (06)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:00 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,semantics
and the research program of ontologies    (07)

Hans Polzer responded:
> Another thing to keep in mind is that conceptual
reality includes things like countries and
corporations and driver's licenses. It's not just
about representing concepts in logic - it's about
representing the reality that human society has
created around these concepts.    (08)

What else is there to representing reality than
representing reality *in logic*? The "reality that
human society has created around these concepts",
insofar as it is relevant to our purposes, is just
more stuff to represent in logic.    (09)

> Society hasn't just created the concept of a
corporation - it has created millions of actual
corporations - not detectable in physical reality
other than through surrogates (i.e., the IBM
corporation is NOT the building in Armonk -which
could be sold tomorrow - or any of its myriad
other physical possessions). How does one detect
and represent such conceptual realities in
"cyberspace"? Where is most of your money in
physical reality? Not in your mattress, I suspect,
nor in gold bars or other physically detectable
manifestations….    (010)

Of what relevance are these ruminations to the
*representation* of these entities in a rigorous
and computationally useful way? Formal ontology is
about the representation of useful information in
logic. If, by some chance, it turns out to be
useful explicitly to note that something is
"conceptual" or "abstract" as opposed to
"physical" (whatever exactly that distinction
amounts to), then it is just *more information*.
John is exactly correct. Rather than debating
endlessly over subtle, quasi-philosophical
distinctions and treading yet again over well-worn
territory (often, it seems, in ignorance of vast
bodies of relevant literature in philosophy,
linguistics, and artificial intelligence), it
would be far more useful to research and discuss
the virtues and liabilities (vis-á-vis, e.g.,
simplicity, expressiveness, and tractability) of
various alternatives for capturing the information
we need rigorously in logic. A good start in the
context of this thread would be Jerry Hobbs'
classic paper "Ontological Promiscuity"
(www.isi.edu/~hobbs/op-acl85.pdf), as well as any
number of things to be found on John's website.    (011)

Chris Menzel    (012)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:22 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,
semantics and the research program
> of ontologies
> 
> Actually, talking about "conceptual" versus
physical or social types is
> essential to constructing a design for an
ontology implementation.  How to
> represent something that is conceptual versus
physical or social is a
> tightly coupled design decision with
responsiveness, throughput, and
> resource requirements.  That's from the
engineering point of view.  
> 
>> From the validity point of view, I have
suggested
> that all concepts are recorded by subjective
> person(s) and that subjectivity remains in those
persons who did NOT record
> concepts.  The validity of a conceptualization
is proven by having other
> users, both actual and prospective, tell you
that they like the results or
> they do not like them.
> Since I claim that ontologies are recorded by
subjective agents (persons,
> whatever ..), it is unlikely that other persons
of different experiences
> will be fully comfortable with most
conceptualizations.  No matter how
> theoretically pure and historic a
conceptualization is, it also has to be
> useful to the audience for which it is intended.
It has to work and work
> properly for the users in order to be a valid
conceptualization.  
> 
> JMHO,
> -Rich
> 
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:18 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysis,
semantics and the research program
> of ontologies
> 
> Folks,
> 
> In philosophy, metaphysics and ontology are
often considered synonymous.
> 
> Much of this discussion deals with issues that
are on the borderline of
> logic and ontology.  Questions about contexts
are among them.
> 
> Talk about whether or not something is
> "conceptual" is not helpful.
> It is much more appropriate to cite examples
from the literature about how
> various researchers and implementers have used
logic and computational
> logics to represent those topics.
> 
> John    (013)


__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/  
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J    (014)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)

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