Avril Styrman wrote:
According to Harre p351-2
mereology?s lack of the ability to model
contexts has led to mereological
fallacies, where contexts are
confusingly mixed:
?the brain is not a part of a person in the way that a grain
of sand
is part of a beach. It is
part of a person?s body and a person?s body
is not a part of that
person in the relevant sense.? In contrast, when
a granular theory is used
as a foundation of ?part?, this
automatically makes the
user to think more
carefully about the
context under which the term ?part? is used: some
parts are flat, some are
granular.
Granular theories of
course do not solve all problems, but they are an
advancement.
-Avril
There is presently a discussion of an analogy to Mereology
in linguistic syntactic parses. A similar situation is now being discussed on
the Link Grammar Parser email list, which is maintained by Linas Veptas, who
has been doing a terrific job on maintaining the Link Grammar Parser.
Linas wrote:
this is the fundamental
idea behind dependency grammars (as opposed to the NP VP crapola that people
seem to like so much, for ahem, inexplicable reasons) If you will notice:
link-grammar is very distinctly NOT hierarchical !
The oldest thing I can
think of is "Meaning-Text Theory", started in the 1960's in Soviet
Russia, but didn't get to the West until the 1980's. The link-grammar README
file mentions it. I'm sort-of trying to move link-grammar so it goes back into
the deeper directions (its part of what RelEx was all about).
So, again, my knee-jerk
reaction is that these guys actually have an experiment that *measures* an
actual effect in humans; which is good, in a sense, as otherwise one could
accuse the linguists of "making stuff up out of thin air". viz:
linguists are really theorists, they need good experimental data to hold up
their theories.
Interested ontologists might enjoy that list as well.
The list is at Link-Grammar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
if you want to subscribe. The problem being addressed is the proper parse of “but”
in a sentence which doesn’t parse well. The discussion talks about “context”
as being difficult to dissect from language.
-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 Avril Styrman
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:42 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] ; Rich Cooper
Cc: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal
Basic Semantic Structures
Hi,
discrete mereology is the simplest flat collection
theory. I inform
the list of a new article by Rom Harré: Behind the
mereological
fallacy. Philosophy, 87(341):329?352, 2012.
According to Harre p351-2 mereology?s lack of the
ability to model
contexts has led to mereological fallacies, where
contexts are
confusingly mixed:
?the brain is not a part of a person in the way that a
grain of sand
is part of a beach. It is part of a person?s body and
a person?s body
is not a part of that person in the relevant sense.?
In contrast, when
a granular theory is used as a foundation of ?part?,
this
automatically makes the user to think more
carefully about the context under which the term ?part?
is used: some
parts are flat, some are granular.
Granular theories of course do not solve all problems,
but they are an
advancement.
-Avril
Quoting "Rich Cooper"
<rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> John Sowa wrote:
>
> The fundamental principle is that there is a
> reason for every
>
> distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to
> ontology. Mereology
>
> is useful. But the hope that it might provide
> "objective" criteria
>
> for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely
> *misleading* fantasy.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> Agreed; it is the observer who decides what
> distinctions to apply, and that makes the
> observer's subjective ontology the appropriate
one
> to use, not some so-called "objective"
ontology.
>
>
>
> Even worse, no two people use exactly the same
> ontology, which is one of those things that make
> interpersonal communications so very faulty.
>
>
>
> -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, September 26, 2012 7:29 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Universal Basic
> Semantic Structures
>
>
>
> On 9/26/2012 9:16 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>
>> Then you agree with the author of the second
> paper?
>
>>
>
>> Robinson, Edward Heath. 2012. Reexamining
fiat,
> bona fide
>
>> and force dynamic boundaries for geopolitical
> entities and
>
>> their placement in DOLCE. Applied Ontology 7
> (2012),
>
>> pp. 93-108, DOI 10.3233/AO-2012-0103, IOS
Press.
>
>
>
> I haven't had a chance to read that paper. But I
> objected to the
>
> distinction of fiat vs. natural boundaries as
soon
> as it was published.
>
>
>
> In physics, everything is continuous. Some
> gradients are sharper
>
> than others, but nothing in nature has a clearly
> defined or definable
>
> 0-thickness boundary.
>
>
>
> Just consider the human body. The boundary
changes
> every time somebody
>
> gets a hair cut, clips fingernails, takes a bath,
> puts on make-up,
>
> removes contact lenses, or sheds a few skin
cells.
> For legal purposes,
>
> even clothing is considered within the body's
> boundary.
>
>
>
> If you admit clothing, you have to ask about the
> difference between
>
> a wallet in somebody's pocket vs. a purse carried
> outside the boundary
>
> of the clothing. What about a necklace that
might
> be partly under
>
> the clothing and partly outside? What about a
> backpack? If you admit
>
> a backpack, what about a suitcase that somebody
is
> carrying. If you
>
> admit that, what about a cane? Crutches? A
> walker? A wheelchair?
>
> A seeing-eye dog?
>
>
>
> The fundamental principle is that there is a
> reason for every
>
> distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to
> ontology. Mereology
>
> is useful. But the hope that it might provide
> "objective" criteria
>
> for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely
> *misleading* fantasy.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
> _______________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Avril Styrman
+358 40 7000 589
_________________________________________________________________
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