William and John, (01)
When you state that a description relation and a classification relation are
synonymous, you imply that a classifying kind and a
description are the same.
The 'new pattern' as John calls it is a 'definition model', typically expressed
in a natural language, but possibly expressed as a
number of related kinds (in which model the classifying kind does not need to
be represented!).
The description (the model as a whole) and the kind (that is defined by the
model) are different things.
A classification relation relates a classified thing to a kind.
A description relation relates a described thing to a 'definition model'. (02)
Another question is whether such a 'definition model' is by definition defining
the classifying kind, or whether a 'definition
model' might sometimes be specifying a described individual thing only.
You seem to take the position that a 'definition model' implicitly defines an
ad hoc kind (or an earlier recognized kind). That can
only be the case at the cost of a counter-intuitive definition of what a kind
is. Because it implies rather odd extrinsic kinds,
such as 'the thing to which I just pointed'. I consider the descrition a model
of 'an individual pointing activity' and not a model
of a 'kind of things to which is pointed by me just a moment ago'. (03)
Andries (04)
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens
> John F Sowa
> Verzonden: donderdag 27 september 2012 5:27
> Aan: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> On 9/26/2012 11:04 PM, William Frank wrote:
> > my point is that when you /describe/ something, you are ipso facto
> > classifying it. That is just what a description does. It specifies the
> > set of things that fit the description, even if that is a singleton.
> >
> > In particular, I think you [Pat] HAVE classified the thing, as something
> > localizable in space and spherical in shape, and occupying a particular
> > position at a particular time. this distinguishes it from Pakistan,
> > topology, hurricane Dora, my brother, and many other things that do not
> > fit the classifier you created.
>
> I agree with William on this point.
>
> If you can describe something, you are assembling patterns that
> have been previously experienced and classified. That particular
> combination may be novel, but the process of combination creates
> a new pattern that classifies it.
>
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|