[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] FW: mKR2IKL

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:14:56 -0700
Message-id: <COL129-W361B0C2045F245FB228C4FCB620@xxxxxxx>
I decided to forward this email to the Forum after I discovered
John's earlier email in the archives.

Once again, I did not receive John's earlier email.
Is this another one bounced from rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?

Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial

From: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx; rslatimer@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: mKR2IKL
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:36:09 -0700

I have already done that for many pages in Rand's book.
The Objectivist Axioms are one such example.
Expressing Rand's ideas was one of the ways
I tested the design of mKR.

I think that I have definitely clarified her presentation.
Here are three examples of mKR vs. Rand from the
Objectivist Axioms.

1) Consciousness
Consciousness :: I am conscious.
and then she goes on for many pages explaining how
there is a subject and object of conscious awareness,
and how perceptions are automatic.

Consciousness :: percept := I do perceive od existent done;
This explicitly shows the subject and object and result of
perceptual awareness.  It immediately focuses on the key
features of awareness, instead of spending many pages
building up to that result.

2) Existence
Existence :: Existence exists.
Rand says this is the only way to describe this axiomatic concept
in a proposition.  She spends many pages describing
various aspects of existents. 

Existence :: entity, characteristic, proposition isa existent;
These are the three essential species of existents.
Rand spends many pages discussing two of them: entity
and characteristic, but ignores proposition.  In her orginal
60 page book, she says very little about propostions.
In "How We Know", Binswanger says that she planned
to treat propositions in Volume II of ITOE, but died
before she could do so.  Binswanger devotes Chapter 5
of his book to his own treatment of propositions, and
how they differ from concepts.  Once again, mKR has
a concise, to-the-point _expression_ of many of his
ideas.  For example: Identification, Integration.

 3) Identity
Identity :: A is A.
Rand says that this statement is only propositonal
form that can be used for axiomatic concepts.

Again, I disagree.  And I summarize the many pages where
she talks about the identities of entities (and existents) with
Identity :: existent has characteristic;

I also summarize her many pages of discussions of the different kinds
of characteristics with
characteristic isc attribute, part, relation, action;
These are the kinds of things included in my "tabula rasa" context.
I think they are very appropriate for upper level ontologies.

Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial

> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:01:48 -0400
> From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rslatimer@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: mKR2IKL
> On 3/31/2014 1:37 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> > I also need to balance parentheses and check
> > IKL quoting conventions.
> Don't bother.
> As I said in the note to Ontolog Forum, those axioms are
> totally useless. Even in English, it's not possible to derive
> any meaningful conclusion from them. Translating them to any
> other notation -- even with computer aid -- can't help.
> Following is the relevant excerpt from my note to Ontolog Forum.
> If you do the following exercise, you might have something useful.
> But if you can't, then it's back to the drawing board.
> John
> ___________________________________________________________________
> For example, the terms 'consciousness', 'free will', 'perceive' ...
> have been used for centuries in many different ways. Perhaps Ayn R
> stated some definitions for them. If you like her definitions,
> then you might try to translate them into your mkr notation.
> If you could take just one page of some analysis that AR expressed
> in English and translate it to mkr, that would be a good first start.
> The next step would be to formulate some rules for relating one mkr
> statement to the next in some logical way. Then the next step would
> be to show how your translation from English to mkr clarified the
> train of thought.
> If you could do that exercise for just one page of AR's philosophy
> (or any other text in any field of science or philosophy), then you
> could make a more convincing case that mkr was a useful tool for
> ontology.
> If you can't do that by hand, no automated version could help.

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>