Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

 John Bottoms,

From developing Ontology perspective whether you take narrower or broader approach,  one has to address the semantics.  Finding a standard definition is one way of handling it.  Assuming semantics and meaning of concepts can cause confusion at a later time.   Since you have already addressed broader perspective, you seem to have assumed the narrower perspective of it..

Dr.Sowa, et al,

What I am trying to say is that:

1.  Logically one can derive  the existence of God,  by proving that religions exist at present and religions ( and believers) have "mandatory" dependency on or relationship with God. Ontologist can develop Ontology for God using such logic.
2.  Scientifically no one has proved the physical presence of God  ( visible or invisible)  in reality yet.  There have been  many assumptions and attempts.
 ( Even if you prove that  Jesus and Krishna and other Gurus  existed,  Jesus  said to be the son of God, and not God himself,  an avatar on this earth, like  Krishna and others,  and scientifically no one has proved the  concept of Avatar in real life.)
3. Philosophically, God is Omniscience, a sociological acceptance of the supreme being.  

Does that make sense?
Pavithra Kenjige

---

From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

Pavithra,

On 4/26/2013 6:36 AM, Pavithra wrote:

John,

To come up with Ontology of something,  you have to understand that thing, its form of existence, and description, ( for attributes ) and associations and behavior and some times, what it does or functionality.   Definitions are a must for Ontology.   One way of getting started is to understand  how a word is defined present,  the semantics, and how many different ways it is being used  and understand the different aspect of it.. Standard  Dictionaries are first step for Ontology.

Yes, There are several issues involved with your statements.I think you are talking about how extensibility is done. You may also be talking about a narrowly defined ontology rather than a broad one. I tend to think from the broadly defined to the more narrowly defined.

First, to extensibility. Yes, I agree that if "god" is a concern then it must appear somewhere in the ontology. Perhaps it only appears in the dictionary or lexicon. That depends on the problem statement. In general extensibility consists of three components. These steps assume that the entity is not an existing entity, either by name, predicate or function.
1. A grammar for expressing the new entity.
2. A rule that expresses the entity.
3. One or more scenarios that can be used to validate addition of the new entity.

Another useful statement from, at least some, philosophy:
"You cannot remove a myth. You can only replace a myth with a better myth."
I believe this is practiced in psychology when dealing with what we would normally call false beliefs.

For your question it might be instructive to choose a scenario: "A doctor's patient believes he is God." In this case the doctor needs the term "god" to, at least, discuss this with the patient. In this case, the doctor doesn't have to "believe" in god in order to have a discussion with the patient. This illustrates a shortcoming of narrowly defined ontologies. That is, that the real world always wants to push the envelope from narrowly defined to widely defined topics.

As an Ontologist, one can study the concept of "God" as it is being practiced, preached, believed, followed etc.    You all have defined thing as the universal type.  In this particular case  that "thing" is "God"!  For all practical purpose,  one can easily say , in main stream God exists thru religions and it is defined  in the books of the religions like Bible!   Books are proof of documentation and whether it is real, does God exist with or without the books or can be scientifically proven is up the scientists to prove.    You can have imaginary concepts in Ontology.
".

If we carefully craft both narrowly defined ontologies and broadly defined ontologies with slightly different practices for each, there should not be a problem. If extensibility is required, we must first determine if it is done by a human-in-the-loop or in an automated fashion.

-JohnB

Thank you,

Pavithra

---

From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

Pavithra,
(my comments are below)

On 4/25/2013 9:56 PM, Pavithra wrote:

John Bottoms,

What Pegasus??

Pegasus is a well-known entity used in discussing what is permissible in philosophy. The question is typically whether we should allow Pegasus to be a subject of discussion, and in what way do we discuss it. I think the same question exists within the discussion of ontologies. We have not yet addressed that in this forum as far as I know.

My questions are -
1.Is there an agreed upon definition of God in scientific world ?  Or can anybody tell for sure who, what God is?? Where does he exist and in which form without  the context of a religion ???  ( The answer most probably is "unknown")

In an ontological discussion we can ignore the question of definitions. We should be looking at the structure of the topic "god" and help users decide where they will put it in an ontology. If the user wants to put it somewhere that it doesn't make sense, and they persist (such as putting "god" in science), then it should become apparent fairly quickly that the predicate wouldn't allow it under science, or the classifier for "god" would recommend putting it elsewhere.

2. Are religions considered scientific?? ( the known answer is "no").    Does proving religions as they are said in scriptures as real going to prove the existence of God??  ( Again, what version of  which scriptures, which religion, .. would be the question there..)!

We agree here, at least for the first question. The others are not a topic for ontologies.

In a scientific way, what are you going to prove about God? God is associated with religions most of the time.    For example, if you take Christianity as a religion,  what do you have to prove?  That Jesus was son of God, and the father existed in an unknown/invisible  form and Jesus was sent to this earth to teach us about God??   How are you going to prove a sociological event like Birth of Jesus as mystical and real as it is said?   It is faith,  it is up to people to believe it.
 And it is the same with most religions.

idem...

And if you think of God without an associated religion,  it is again faith and belief about existence of  almighty presence in an unknown/invisible form that leads and supports the  " good " ( not the evil)  of the world.  It is up to ones own imagination ..  Otherwise, the scriptures that are associated with religions that defines God.
The Christian belief about  "Adam and Eve and eating the fruit of knowledge tree change them to mortals from immortals who were living for a long, happy period of time etc.."  makes me believe that there was more emphasis on faith and obedience rather then reasoning.  ( Pegasus and book of knowledge??)  Where as Hinduism focus on knowledge and truth and enlightenment    and  scriptures like Vedas capture ancient knowledge about science, astronomy, math, economics,  social sectors and behavioral rules, ( Dharma  & Adharma, -  rights and wrongs, the law)  and  myth & mythology, folk lore, and  etc 

What is one going to prove about ??  Other then practical implications, reasoning used  for such said scriptures ?? Some are applicable to current times and some are not. Some are totally outdated.

But it should  not be a debate about religion or ... should it be a debate of religions  to prove the existence of God??    Debates about religions is a beaten path and no one wants to go there!  It is easier to accept that existence of God as unknown other then for faith  ( and magic ).

The forum is about ontologies. Is there a place in an ontology for "religion", "god', etc? I hope so. It would be an interesting study to look at an ontological structure.

Is there a place in the science ontology for discussions about "god"? I don't think so. It would more likely be under "the philosophy of religion", or "the nature of science", in "philosophy".

-JohnB

Pavithra

---

From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

Ed, et al,

I think we are bobbling the ball on "god", as we did on memes. Maybe we
should track the practice back to "Pegasus", but let me address god/God
and memes for a moment.

It is asked, "Can we know there is a god?" The use of the word "know" is
out of place in this sentence without further qualification. It is often
used to express the view that god should not be discussed in science,
and I agree with that view. However, there is a role in ontology, in the
broadest sense for "god". But it needs to be defined in a domain other
than "science". If we sanction or embargo the use of the word "god' in
an ontology, then we have failed in our professional responsibilities.

Likewise, we do permit the use of "Pegasus" without censure. We assume
it is part of a Wittgenstein game that begins with "Once upon a
time...". Without Pegasus and Minnie Mouse we lose our ability to talk
with, and about the industries that employ these symbols. Likewise with
the term "god".

With respect to "meme", it seems like there are mixed opinions about how
it should be treated. One camp believes it is a poor synonym for
"popularity" or a similar notion. Others, including myself, believe that
it is sufficiently unique that we humans have adopted a term for the
concept, albeit, poorly defined.

Are we to assume that those who use the term "meme" are  fadish, overly
poetic or oafish? My approach is to reserve opinion on this issue and
focus on the use of the term. I do see merit in Dennett's analogy to
viruses. His metaphor does overlap with "popularity", which does not
capture the full effect of "meme". I give the group an adequate, passing
grade in Ontology101 in this case. In my view we still have a lot to do
in the development of the ontological practice.

-John Bottoms (disclaimer: I studied at Christian Theological Seminary
in '74)
  FirstStar Systems
  Concord, MA USA


On 4/25/2013 12:43 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> I suppose this is what happens when we talk about our technology as "ontology".
> I am sure I will regret even contributing to this discussion.  But fools rush in ...
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>> The basic scientific argument against the existence of God is that there is
>> absolutely no observational evidence for the existence of a God, nor any
>> reason to hypothesise such an entity in order to explain anything that is
>> observable.
> I agree that this is the basic scientific argument.  Now, I propose to play "Devil's Advocate".
>
> Assuming we hypothesize the Big Bang to dispense with creation myths, how did the Big Bang itself come to be?
> "And God said, Let there be light. And there was light."  (Genesis 1: 3)
>
> That one biblical passage associates the prevalent scientific theory, now based on extensive observation, with an answer to the question the theory doesn't try to answer.  I don't have to believe that it is true (the "leap of faith"), in order to recognize something that is now taken to be observable and is not explained by modern scientific theory.  It is, of course, possible that some yet less-than-understood phenomenon like "dark energy" might be the predecessor and explain the Big Bang, but the question is currently still open.
>
>> A very straightforward application of Occam's principle then suffices. Of course this is not a *proof*, but it is a sound *scientific* argument.
> I am merely proposing a possible counterexample to Pat's basis postulate, which would imply that the application of Occam's razor is premature (dicto simpliciter, if you will).
>
> I believe that the existence of God is unknowable.  It can be accepted or rejected without harm to the soundness of one's arguments for science.
> How the existence of God may relate to human behaviors is an entirely separate question, not to be confused (as it often is) with the fundamental question.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S.  One other question that has always intrigued me:  How did a moderately successful pre-Iron Age agricultural and mercantile civilization come to postulate the Big Bang?  Or (in Genesis 1:2 , out-of-order) describe the formation of the solar system?  It is not hard to understand how the concept "Divine inspiration" comes into existence.  But it is also not unreasonable to suppose another source of that knowledge  ("Are we alone?"), which many "hard scientists" also think is nonsense. Underlying both of these "conjectures" is another observation we cannot explain.
>
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer                    Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263            Work:  +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263            Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>

________________________

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)