On Wed, April 10, 2013 18:32, Pavithra wrote: (01)
> DF: Needless to say, the word, "thing", has scores of
> definitions.� The
> normal formal ontology use of the term is the one that informs the words
> "anything", "something", "everything", and
> "nothing".� If one says that
> "nothing" has a certain property P, but you define words as not being
> "things", then a word having the property P would not falsify the
> claim that nothing has property P.
>
> In formal ontologies, the concept "thing" (e.g., Cyc's #$Thing) is
> the universal set -- anything that the ontology can refer to
> (including #$Thing) is an instance of it. (02)
> PK : What are you saying about nothing? If word is a thing, a string, (03)
A word is a thing, yes. A word is not a string. Most things are not
words. Most things are not strings. (04)
> and nothing is an empty string??� (05)
Not at all. "Nothing" means "no thing", i.e.
(ForAll N ( (N:Nothing) <=>(not N:Thing))
but since Thing is defined as
(ForAll T (T:Thing))
that means that the cardinality of Nothing is 0. (06)
>> And all things as words at your discretion. (07)
> DF : Not at all.� Flower petals, animal species, and thing itself are
> not words, although they may have various words or strings of
> words to denote them. (08)
> PK:� See this again mixes the levels of abstraction. (09)
Yes. I am discussing formal ontology. You appear to be discussing
language. (010)
>�If you look at language as a first level of abstraction,
> the 'flower'� is a word used to represent the object flower. (011)
I am discussing the object flower, not a word spelled "flower", "kukka",
"fleur", or some other string in some other language. (012)
> Why can not we keep it simple and use the exiting concepts,
> and layers of abstraction�the way they are? (013)
Words have many properties that their referents do not and vice versa.
Conflating the two adds complications. Separating them keeps it simple. (014)
Regards,
-- doug foxvog (015)
> ________________________________
> From: doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum]
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes
>
> On Wed, April 10, 2013 14:07, Pavithra wrote:
>> Dr. Hayes
>
>> Based on wikipedia definition of meme,
>
> Wikipedia should never be considered as a reference. Use the document
> that is the source of whatever Wikipedia claims. For definitions, go to
> a
> good dictionary.
>
>> it can be modeled as a concept. It is a social concept.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
>
> Wikipedia references the Meriam Webster Dictionary's definition, "an
> idea,
> behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
>
> Of course, the idea is far more than that. Dawkins proposed a theory
> of how they operate and others have modified and expanded the
> theory (creating the field of memetics). A cultural ontology could have
> the basic concept at a broad level and have multiple theories of how
> the property of memes in theory knowledge bases (or ontologies).
>
>> You can call all "words" as "things".
>
> Needless to say, the word, "thing", has scores of definitions. The
> normal formal ontology use of the term is the one that informs the words
> "anything", "something", "everything", and "nothing". If one says that
> "nothing" has a certain property P, but you define words as not being
> "things", then a word having the property P would not falsify the claim
> that nothing has property P.
>
> In formal ontologies, the concept "thing" (e.g., Cyc's #$Thing) is the
> universal set -- anything that the ontology can refer to (including
> #$Thing)
> is an instance of it.
>
>> And all things as words at your discretion.
>
> Not at all. Flower petals, animal species, and thing itself are not
> words,
> although they may have various words or strings of words to denote them.
>
>> But defies the English language, & meaning of the
>> word "thing" and how it is described in wikipedia.
>
> Wikipedia's disambiguation page gives the first meaning of the word
> "thing" as "Object (philosophy)", which page states that "Charles S.
> Peirce
> defines the broad notion of an object as anything that we can think or
> talk
> about.
>
> We can think or talk about words, so they would be PhilosopicalObjects.
> So would memes (or anything else you mention!).
>
>> Wikipedia has documented meaning of the word "word" and
>> "thing" as follows.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThingÂ
>> 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.
>
> ?? Huh? Are there words that one can not talk about?
>
>>However I can say that nouns are things.
>
> The referents of verbs, adverbs, and adjectives are also things, in that
> they can be talked about. One can also talk about prepositions, but
> if they don't have referents, then their referents are not things.
>
>> But am not the authority on wikepedia or English language. So it is at
>> your discretion, ( In other words, you are the adviser).
>
> I advise that word is a type of thing, which means that any instance of
> word is an instance of thing. Wikipedia is also a thing.
>
>> 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.
>
> Programming languages allow for infinite loops. Just because the
> concept
> of thing is an instance of thing, your reasoning engine does not have to
> follow the turtles all the way down. One should program to avoid
> infinite
> loops.
>
>> Who is "us" ?? Us is Ontolog group and OWL, UML modelers..
>
> Many in the Ontolog group find OWL very restrictive.
>
>> About Darwinism, As you said, DNA and genetic engineering did not exist
>
> I presume you mean human knowledge of DNA.
>
>> 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
>
> I assume that the word "fatal" referred to being fatal to a continued
> line of descent. There are many cases in which animals of different
> species of the same genus can breed to produce sterile offspring.
>
>> 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.
>
> As species are diverging, members of different subspecies are less
> likely to produce fertile (or any) offspring. It is certainly possible
> to have 3 subspecies (S1, S2, and S3) diverging from a parent species
> S, such that a member of S1 may sometimes produce a fertile offspring
> with a member of S2, and a member of S2 may sometimes produce a
> fertile offspring with a member of S3, but no member of S1 may produce
> a fertile offspring with a member of S3.
>
> Sure, no one has proof. But we have good scientific theories that we
> can state and model.
>
>> (A Korsak looks like cross breed between a cat & a
>> dog, I may call it a cat ).
>
> The English term is corsac fox (or corsac); its scientific name is
> Vulpes corsac. It is a kind of fox (Vulpes), which is a canine. You
> may call it what you want, but it is not a feline.
>
>> 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:
>>>Â
>>> ·    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
>
> As are verbs and adjectives.
>
>>> 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.
>
> OK. Words such as prepositions don't describe things.
>
>>> * 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.
>
> OWL users have taken the English word "concept" and made it a jargon
> word. I find such use confusing and suggest avoiding such computer
> language-specific use when not referring to OWL. The Compact Oxford
> Dictionary's first definition of 'concept' is "an abstract idea" -- which
> seems a good definition to me. The word comes from Latin 'conceptum' --
> "something conceived".
>
>>> At present we do not use the verbiage "meme" for it. Probably we
>>> can use the name meme in the future.
>
> The word 'meme' is part of a theory that many do not accept.
> There is no need to commit to that theory. I suggest using the
> word only when referring to the theory to which it is attached.
>
>> 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.Â
>>
>> 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??Â
>>
>> 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
>>>Â 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.
>>>>
>>>>Â Darwin does not take cross pollination ( for lack of better
>>>> word)Â
>>>> 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 intoÂ
>>>> 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.Â
>>>> I know
>>>> this is a thesis for genetic decoding not fiction.Â
>>>>
>>>> I still have to read the book listed below..
>>>>
>>>> Pavithra Â
>>>>Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>Â FirstStar Systems
>>>>Â Concord, MA USA (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|