On Fri, April 12, 2013 19:42, jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (01)
> Hmm "Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or
> actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity" is an
> unproductive definition in my humble opinion. (02)
It is a very broad concept, which has various narrower concepts that are
a lot more informative, but which share a group of properties that the
more general term has. That seems to me to be a useful concept. But,
maybe it should be considered a non-instantiable class. (03)
The rest of this discussion seems to be over the correct meaning to assign
to a term with a certain label. This discussion occurs all the time and imho
is almost always the wrong discussion. In a specific ontology, the names
of terms give a hint at their meaning, but the defining statements and
carefully crafted comments make the meaning far clearer. (04)
Words in most natural languages have large numbers of meanings --
often partially overlapping clouds of meaning. In formal ontology,
the mappings between words and meaning is of interest and should
be understood to be n-to-n. But clear definitions of the terms and
rules and relations applicable to the terms are more crucial than the
label attached to the terms. (05)
> Let's deconstruct. (06)
> This definition is merely saying an idea is "a product of mental
> activity" because "potentially or actually exists in the mind" simply
> restates the definition of "thought or concept" while its association
> with "thought or concept" covers the whole gamut of thinking, in its
> entirety! So it's merely saying an idea is a product of mental
> activity... how wrong (& useless) though! (07)
It defines "idea" as the union of "thought" and "concept". I don't know
what definition of "concept" they are using, but it clearly is not the OWL
meaning of the term. (08)
Such a definition can not be "wrong", because it sketches out a meaning.
You may have a different meaning you wish to assign to the English word,
but that does not mean that the word "idea" can not map to several terms
in the ontology. (09)
> The thought "my knee hurts" is clearly not an idea. (010)
This depends upon the meaning of the term "idea". (011)
> There is no causality implicit or explicit due to that thought. (012)
Correct. If you propose a concept for a specific ontology that is
restricted to thoughts about causality, that would be a subclass
of the more general concept. That does not mean that there
is no value in the more general concept. (013)
> Ok, what is a "bad idea" vs "good idea"? One of two
> things is meant by that. Either the stated causality is valid or not, or
> the outcome is desirable or not. An idea's premise (the 'if' part) is
> separately good or bad (its truth quotient), as that judgement is the
> rationale cited for the idea's causality being valid or not. (014)
So jmc:idea has required properties of a premise and some relation
to causality. (015)
> A specific housing style, as a meme, is interesting.
> Consistent with my
> earlier statements, I'd be saying sure it's a meme, one initiated by
> home builders to charge extra over some 'conventional' building style. (016)
Housing styles developed over thousands of years in areas all around
the globe at a time when many people were their own home builders
or when artisans in a community helped design and build structures.
Such designs were memes under the original definition of the word
before marketing. (017)
> But that's what happens, that's exactly how this meme passes from one
> member of a society to another - via the builders! Why would they
> develop a new "style" (which of course, is not a new "function" of the
> building) if not for additional income? So the new style becomes extant,
> it becomes conventional, the more it's passed around. (018)
> Now on to the god meme. How radioactive.
> You state that the god meme is the "popular
> conception of the god(s). That IS about whether higher entities exist
> and about their features" ... ok let's run with that. Let's think about
> how this meme came about. (019)
> Did individual persons develop this belief
> on their own, assigning reality to something they could neither see nor
> touch? If yes, then I'd agree that a meme is an emergent consensus of
> sorts. Or was it something they were TOLD by intellectuals seeking to
> create a caste of wizards, medicine-men, and priests? If so, then I
> would re-state that a meme is an idea originating from calculating
> persons who benefit from its adoption. (020)
I guess it is impossible to discover how societies all around the world
independently came up with the concept. Was it individuals coming
up with the idea on their own? Or did it arise in bull sessions with
people trying to explain things they did not understand? Or was it
with connivers trying to figure out ways to cement their control over
others? If it was #3, how did the connivers come up with the idea
in the first place? My guess is #2. If interested, maybe you could
consult sociologists. (021)
> IOW, a meme is the premise of
> an "idea" whose outcome is pre-determined. (022)
This seems like a new idea to me. The original definition involved the
way that memes change as they spread through society. This seems
to lack that. (023)
-- doug foxvog (024)
> -jmc
>
> On 12.04.2013 14:09,
> doug foxvog wrote:
>
>> On Fri, April 12, 2013 14:25,
> jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>> ... an idea is an insight about an
> outcome SHOULD a certain action be performed,
>>
>> This is a
> non-standard definition of the concept "idea". The modern
>> American
> English definition is
>> "Something, such as a thought or conception,
> that potentially
>> or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental
> activity."
>> [American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
>> A
> Compact Oxford Dictionary definition is closer to your meaning:
>> "a
> thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action"
>> in that it
> refers to action.
>>
>> However, the statements that memes are ideas have
> seemed to me
>> to refer to the American Heritage definition.
>>
>>> while
> a 'meme' is a statement of action derived-from/supportive-of a
> particualr outcome:
>>
>> This property of 'meme' doesn't correlate well
> with a housing style
>> being a meme.
>> At the risk of sounding like a
> conspiracist, the 'god' meme is a good example of a meme because it
> PROC
>>
>>> Gods have arisen in cultures around the world. The initial
> ostensible purpose was to explain the hows and whys of things that
> weren't immediately obvious. Why don't the sun and moon fall
>> What
> makes them go around? How did life (and various forms of it) originate?
> What happens after one dies? How did [particular geological feature]
> originate? Cabals have formed to achieve power by setting themselves up
> as intermediaries between the people and the meme, gaining control over
> the meme. However, i would guess that in the majority of cases, those
> who currently are those intermediaries including the top people in most
> religions truly believe in the meme. Of course, many sects would be
> counter-examples. The 'god' meme wasn't developed to further the social
> goal of good nutrition.
>>
>> Sure. But it was used for that. Religions
> promote treating others fairly,
>> refraining from theft, murder,
> assault, lying to get people in trouble,
>> respecting elders, and other
> beneficial social goals. However, the> those who support competing
> religions.
>> 5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px;
> width:100%">The 'god' meme is not at all about whether a higher entity
> exists, it is more about with whom that entity negotiates.
>>
>> The
> *meme* would be the popular conception of the god(s). That IS
>> about
> whether higher entities exist and about their features. The
>> religion
> can have other features.
>>
>> -- doug f
>> -john On
>>
>>> x solid;
> margin-left:5px; width:100%">On 4/12/2013 10:14 AM,
>>
> @hypergrove.comwrote: A very well-known meme in the political sphere is
> that "tax cuts gen
>>
>>> x; width:100%">I would call that a slogan, as
> in "campaign slogan". As Ali noted,
>>>
>>>> the only reason why it
> keeps getting bandied about is that the
>>> Koch
>>>
>>>> Brothers fund
> hype machines (AKA think tanks) that promote it.
>>> John
> _________________________________________________________________Message
> Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/[2]
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ [2]
>>>
>>>> 00%">Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ [1][4]
>>> e" style="padding-left:5px;
> border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">To join:
> http://ontolo
>>>
>>>> m/ontolog-forum
>>>
> olog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ [2]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ [3] [3]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>>
>>>> g.cim3.n
>>>
>
>ki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J">http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ [4]
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> [3] Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared
> Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ [2] Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ [1] To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J [5]
>>>
>>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ [4]
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> [3] Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared
> Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ [2] Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ [1] To join:
>>
>
>l?WikiHomePage#nid1J">http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> [2]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> [3]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> [4]
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> [5]
> 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
> (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)
|