On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Pavithra wrote: (01)
> Dr. Hayes
>
> Based on wikipedia definition (02)
Wikipedia articles should not be cited as definitions. (03)
> of meme, it can be modeled as a concept. It is a social concept. (04)
If you use the terminology "social concept", then you are using language
normally. But if you use a recently-coined technical word which is the subject
of current academic controversy, then you are taken sides in this ongoing
debate, and must state your position carefully or you will be misunderstood.
Technical academic words bring intellectual baggage with them, which you must
be prepared to defend. Citing wikipedia will not be considered to be an
adequate defense. (05)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
>
>
> You can call all “words” as “things”. And all things as words at your
>discretion. But defies the English language, & meaning of the word "thing"
>and how it is described in wikipedia. (06)
I really do not need Wikipeia to tell me how to use English words. Words are
things, just as numbers, patterns and other non-physical things are. Spoken or
written word tokens are *physical* things. (07)
> Wikipedia has documented meaning of the word "word" and "thing" as follows.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing (08)
BTW, not that it really matters, but this article is quite badly written and is
a confused jumble of ideas from western and Indian philosophy. (09)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word
>
> Using definitions of those two words, I can not derive that all words are
>things in a logical manner. (010)
If you wish to claim that some words are not things, then you are obliged to
say what it is you think they are. The grammatical distinction can hardly work,
as (in English at least) the same word may often be used both as a noun and as
a verb, eg "stitch". If nouns but not verbs are things, is "stitch" a thing? (011)
> However I can say that nouns are things.
>
> But am not the authority on wikepedia or English language. So it is at your
>discretion, ( In other words, you are the adviser). However, In traditional
>modeling, for example relational and Object Oriented world such assumptions
>leads to many to many relationships and causes infinite loops in programming. (012)
Really? I am surprised to hear that. Many, probably most, ontology formalisms
allow words to exist as things, eg "stitch"@en^^rdf:langString in RDF 1.1.
Character strings are one of the basic XML Schema datatypes. (013)
>
> Who is "us" ?? Us is Ontolog group and OWL, UML modelers.. (014)
Yes, but modelers of what, exactly? BTW, support for xsd:string is mandatory in
OWL. (015)
>
> About Darwinism, As you said, DNA and genetic engineering did not exist at
>the time of definition. Felidae & Canidae or Cats and Dogs can not breed an
>offspring and it is fatal if they do so, since they belong to different
>species Who knows what happens in the future or happened millions of years
>ago. I speculate about such things. I have no proof one way or the other at
>hand. (016)
Quite a lot is now known about speciation and paths of evolution, so your
speculations can be informed by some light reading. One very nice survey is
Richard Dawson's "The Ancestor's Tale", which I highly recommend. (017)
> ( A Korsak looks like cross breed between a cat & a dog, I may call it a
>cat (018)
I guess you may do what you like, but you would be wrong (and you would be
making bad data that someone else is going to have to work hard to fix.) It is
in fact a fox, not a cat. If you want to say it looks like a cat, use (019)
http://www.purl.org/net/lio#looksLike (020)
instead of (021)
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type (022)
Pat (023)
> ). I will read or re-read the books that you suggested.
>
> Pavithra
>
>
> From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> To: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Pavithra wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > John Bottoms:
> > From a modeling perspective:
> >
> > · Languages are first level abstraction of real world
> > · Languages are expression of the world, allows us to express and
>communicate past, present, future, real and imaginary, proven and unproven
>aspects of the world.
>
> But they are also in the actual world, and can be studied empirically like
>any other phenomenon.
>
> > · Words are parts of a language.
> > · Nouns are used to express “things” in English language. Things -
>as in entities. ( Not all words are things. For example, verbs are words, but
>not things)
>
> All words are things. Not all words *describe* things, maybe.
>
> > · Nouns are a subset of words.
> > · Memes are ideas / concepts, real or imaginary, proven or unproven.
>
> >
> > Question is : do we need to model meme??
>
> Who is "we" and what is being "modeled"?
>
> > My opinion : Concepts can be named with a name and modeled. At present
>we do not use the verbiage –“ meme” for it. Probably we can use the name
>“meme” in the future.
>
> My advice would be to only use the term if you have a pretty exact idea of
>what it is you are talking about, and document that understanding as carefully
>as you possibly can.
>
> >
> > About Darwinism, Americans use the word Darwinism from a scientific
>evolution point of view vs theological, god made us, changed us ( mutation)
>etc.
>
> American scientists use the term the same way other scientists do.
>
> >
> > Maxwell, & Dr. Steven.
> > Thanks for summarizing my gibberish writing. ( It was not scientific feed
>back, it was more of a general discussion)
> > There is natural evolution due to mutation and then there is human
>intervention for change.
>
> Until recently, the only intervention available was artificial *selection*,
>which follows the natural process but amplifies the effects.
>
> > Grafting & genetic engineering are human intervention. My point was
>Darwinism did not include human intervention, or cross breeding among
>subspecies.
>
> Darwin certainly considered cross-breeding and also human intervention in
>breeding (eg of dogs and farm animals, which he studied at great length: I
>recommend reading his "Origin of Species", it is a very readable work.) He did
>not, of course, consider genetic engineering, as genetics had not even been
>formulated when he was writing. I suspect he would have been delighted and
>fascinated to have known about genetics and DNA, but he did not have this
>pleasure.
>
> > You mentioned that his theory includes cross breeding among subspecies??
>
> If animals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they are (by definition)
>the same species.
>
> >
> > However the following is not totally proven in all cases and is open for
>speculation and there are ethical issues about genetic engineering. ( I don;t
>want to go there)
> > • crossing between different species is genetically fatal ..
> > Thanks,
> > Pavithra
> >
> >
> > From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
> >
> > Pavithra,
> >
> > I may not have remembered his wording correctly in the use of "word". Also,
>it is a difficulty of linguistics that "thing" often gets used when a better
>selection would be "entity". However, the audience understood the intent of
>the question. Words come and go and likewise memes come and go. They share
>some characteristics and there is a shoot-from-the-hip impulse to put them in
>a lexicon or dictionary.
> >
> > Another view might be that memes are types of propositions that need to be
>evaluated. They could be classified into "indeterminate" until they are
>evaluated. Dennett does recognize that memes are "good" or "bad", and I
>suppose we should accept that they can be resurrected. One theory I have is
>that the term "meme" applies to atomic entities that have particular
>attributes or properties that can be generalized or rationalized. If that is
>true then we should be able to build classifiers for memes. A question for
>exploration is whether that property can be understood in a way that makes
>sense or is useful.
> >
> > Your view of giraffe evolution is referred to as Lamarckian inheritance and
>it survives today only as a weakened theory.
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism)
> >
> > -John Bottoms
> > Concord, MA USA
> > On 4/9/2013 8:39 PM, Pavithra wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Words are not things. "Words" representation things if they are nouns.
>memes are ideas that spreads from person to person??
> >>
> >> Darwinism and theory of evolution explains how living organisms evolve
>over few generations according to the needs/usage etc. According to him
>Giraffe has long neck, because they keep stretching their neck to eat branches
>and eventually it caused a genetic mutation to aid survival -- a process
>known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the
>next generation.
> >>
> >> Darwin does not take cross pollination ( for lack of better word) of
>plants and animals and between different species that happens in one
>generation and produce offspring of blended types into consideration. A
>Lion and Tiger may have a Liger for a child. You can actually cut a branch of
>one fruit tree and put it another fruit tree branch stub and tie it up and it
>may bear the fruit of the first tree kind.. There is all sorts of
>intervention that happens to change the way species of plants and animal world
>to evolve into something new and different not only by genetic mutation due
>to thousands of years of usage or need for survival but due to cross
>pollination. I know this is a thesis for genetic decoding not fiction.
> >>
> >> I still have to read the book listed below..
> >>
> >> Pavithra
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:28 PM
> >> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
> >>
> >> Daniel Dennett's next book will be out in a few weeks and I had the
> >> opportunity to hear him talk about how memes obey the tenets of Darwinism.
> >>
> >> The title of his book is, "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking".
> >> (not available yet,
> >> http://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/0393082067)
> >>
> >> His argument starts by asking if words are things. Then he argues that
> >> if words are things then we should consider memes as things also. He
> >> goes on to illustrate that memes follow the basic three principles of
> >> Darwinism.
> >>
> >> His arguments are compelling and I wonder where they belong in the grand
> >> ontologies of entities. Are memes a new construct, or do memes simply
> >> replicate a known construct?
> >>
> >> -John Bottoms
> >> FirstStar Systems
> >> Concord, MA USA
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
> (024)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|