Simon, (01)
I'll be brief. (02)
> None of this evidence makes it any more legitimate to require admitting
> the entities of naïve/folk psychology into ones Ontology. (03)
First, the word 'naive' is inappropriate for the analyses by
philosophers and psychologists before the 20th c. (04)
But the word 'naive' is eminently appropriate for the prohibitions
by the behaviorists, which led to half a century of stagnation in the
cognitive sciences -- at least in the USA. The Europeans, including
the Russians, were spared the worst of the behaviorist onslaught.
(Unfortunately, WW II cut short many promising studies... and lives.) (05)
For a survey of the kinds of studies I consider appropriate, see the
following slides and the references cited there: (06)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf
The goal of language understanding (07)
For ontologies about social reality, I have more sympathy with Searle's
position in the following debate: (08)
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/searle.PDF (09)
For my commentary on this debate, see pp. 7 to 9 of the following
article. But the first 6 pages are also relevant: (010)
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/worlds.pdf
Worlds, Models, and Descriptions (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|