To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:08:04 +0900 |
Message-id: | <CADM4J9wsmmb_UpzT3mHEb_vXPRRtv42MvmqG8-SEkkgtzyz+oQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I don't see what the purported evidence is evidence of. There is a difference between theories of reality and reality itself. That we can come up with different theories, and that those theories may be influence (or biased) by certain pyschological (or other) factors does not mean there is no universal ontology. (I say this with the understanding that "universal ontology" is in the philosophical sense, basically meaning that there is an objective (mind-independent) reality...and that it is knowable). Now why one would subscribe to a view questioning (or the stronger: denying) that there is a reality independent on minds, I cannot say. But in doing so (at least the stronger), they would negate science itself, and therefore their own mind. As for natural kinds: by their very definition (or by the common philosophical understanding of them), they are delineations of a mind-independent reality, hence natural. The only change I would make to this would be to remind persons that minds are themselves parts of reality and hence natural. To say beliefs steer (in a strong sense as in determine) perception is likely too strong; I would not take the articles cited too much to heart. The universe itself is dynamically changing, as in mind. One limitation of the entire knowledge representation (and related fields) is that snapshots are (perhaps presently necessarily) used to represent a dynamically changing world. Respectfully,
Robert NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in or attached to this email is private and confidential, is protected from disclosure and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Review, reproduction, or use of this information by unintended or unauthorized recipients is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender, delete it from any and all your computer systems, and do not read, retransmit, retain, print, publish, distribute, disclose or copy this information, or take any action in reliance thereon. This also means that it's expected that the content of this message will not be shared with others without the consent of the sender. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Here is yet another anecdotal evidence atom that _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality, Rich Cooper |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality, Rich Cooper |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality, Rich Cooper |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology is affected by Personality, Rich Cooper |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |