FWIW, (01)
Gods and Pegasus are ontologized in Cyc. (02)
Everything except instance of (#$isa), subclass of (#$genls), and
comments have been removed from OpenCyc, but there you find
first for Pegasus:
Individual : Pegasus
Mt : UniversalVocabularyMt
isa : [Mon]Individual (03)
Mt : GreekMythologyMt
isa : [Def]WhiteColor [Mon]Horse (04)
Mt : UnitedStatesSocialLifeMt
isa : [Mon]MythologicalThing (05)
Mt : GreekMythologyMt
comment : [Mon]"Pegasus is a winged horse in Greek mythology." (06)
Note that you need to do inter-context reasoning. (07)
There are a number of individual instances of the class, God, in
different Cyc contexts. For the class, God, OpenCyc has: (08)
Collection : God
Mt : UniversalVocabularyMt
isa : [Mon]FirstOrderCollection (09)
Mt : GreekMythologyMt
isa : [Mon]OrganismClassificationType (010)
Mt : UniversalVocabularyMt
genls : [Mon]Agent-NonArtifactual [Mon]DivineBeing
comment : [Mon]"The class of supernatural beings generally supposed to be
(a) all-powerful (or more powerful than other classes of divinities within
the same religious/folkloric tradition), and (b) immortal (or nearly so,
for all practical purposes)." (011)
Mt : EnglishMt
prettyString : "deities" "gods" "god"
prettyString-Canonical : "deity" (012)
Mt : (MappingMtFn DBPediaTripleStore)
rdfURI : [Inf]"http://dbpedia.org/resource/God"; (013)
Mt : (ContextOfPCWFn (OWLOntologyFn
"http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances";))
seeAlsoURI :
[Inf]"http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-deity-noun-1"; (014)
Mt : (ContextOfPCWFn Wikipedia-WebSite)
wikipediaArticleName : [Def]"God"
wikipediaArticleURL : [Def]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God"; (015)
Mt : ChristianityMt
[Mon](isa JesusChrist God)
[Mon](isa GodTheFather God) (016)
Mt : GreekMythologyMt
[Mon](isa Leto-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Eos-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Atlas-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Prometheus-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Crius-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Tethys-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Phoebe-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Oceanus-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Thia-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Themis-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Mnemosyne-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Iapetus-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Hyperion-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Dione-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Coeus-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Rhea-TheTitaness God)
[Mon](isa Gaia-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Uranus-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Poseidon-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Persephone-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Kronos-TheTitan God)
[Mon](isa Hestia-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Hermes-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Zeus God)
[Mon](isa Apollo-God God)
[Mon](isa Athena-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Aphrodite-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Ares-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Artemis-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Demeter-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Dionysus-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Hades-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Hebe-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Hephaestus-TheGod God)
[Mon](isa Hera-TheGoddess God) (017)
Mt : Judeo-ChristianMt
[Mon](isa GodOfAbrahamIsaacAndJacob God)
[Mon](isa Baal God)
[Mon](isa GodTheSon God) (018)
Mt : RomanMythologyMt
[Def](isa Trajan-RomanEmperor God)
[Def](isa Augustus-EmperorOfRome God)
[Mon](isa Venus-TheGoddess God)
[Mon](isa Cupid God)
[Mon](isa Janus-TheGod God) (019)
Mt : (ContextOfPCWFn Pentateuch)
[Mon](isa GodOfAbrahamIsaacAndJacob God) (020)
-- doug foxvog (021)
On Thu, April 25, 2013 23:30, John Bottoms wrote:
> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
> (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|