Dear Ed, (01)
In my experience the word concept is used by two groups of people in
different ways. One of them is the way that you define concept, the other
one is what I called "mental concept" below. Personally I try to avoid the
word since I think concept as you defined it is equivalent to class, and
mental concept is just a representation in the brain, which I'm sure is
valid, but not very useful because it cannot be shared, only something
produced as a result of it (some spoken or written words for example) can
actually be shared. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
> Sent: 28 January 2013 22:33
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Conceptual objects (WAS: NULLs and 3+1 vs. 4D
> ontologies (was Re: Knowledge graphs by Google and Facebook))
>
> Matthew West wrote:
> > A mental concept is (I would argue) a representation of some thing.
> > Presumably, a shared mental concept are mental concepts of different
> > people that represent the same thing, so it is the location of the
> > thing that is relevant, because that is how you know that the mental
> > concepts are shared representations.
>
> I cannot make any sense of what Matthew wrote.
> I understand a 'concept' to be an intension -- a collection of properties
that
> may be simultaneously possessed by any number of individual things,
including
> none, although some concepts are clearly intended to be unitary, or at
least
> temporally unitary.
> And I understand the idea of a "mental representation" of the concept to
be
> how a person holds that concept in his head, which technically gets into
> biophysical cognitive science (or theology, I suppose).
> I have no idea how this relates to location of things, even if the concept
be
> of a single individual thing, real or fictitious. It seems to me that
> location is only relevant when it is, or is implicated in, one of the
> properties that distinguishes instances of the concept. For example, it
seems
> to me that the concepts "bank manager" and "Marilyn Monroe" can be shared
very
> well without regard to spatial location in any way, and only the latter
may be
> related to temporal location.
>
> I conclude from this that Matthew and I speak significantly different
dialects
> of technical English, and I must assume that I am not part of the intended
> audience.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Engineering Laboratory --
Systems
> Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Office: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|