Of course, I meant to say existent isc entity, characteristic, proposition; Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial
From: rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] FW: mKR2IKL Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 08:57:09 -0700
Ed Perhaps "ignore" is the wrong word. Part of Rand's discussion of existence says that there are facts which are independent of man. Those facts are expressable as propositions. But she does not take the next step and file them under existent. The inverse proposition existence isc entity, characteristic, proposition; is implied by the original proposition. It's just swapping subject and object. Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial
From: edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 15:02:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: mKR2IKL
Dick,
you wrote:
mKR:
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.
With my at best moderate education in philosophy, I would argue that that is because propositions have nothing directly to do with perception, while both entities
and characteristics (properties) do. If I understood Rand correctly, entities and characteristics
are that which we perceive to be. Propositions, on the other hand, exist only because we create them, not because they
are. They are not perceived; they are invented. They belong more to the ‘cogito ergo sum’ view of consciousness. Of itself, this takes nothing from what you say, but it explains the “omission” in Rand’s work.
Now, as to what you said:
Are there species of ‘existent’ that are not ‘essential’? Do you have some notion of ‘essence’ that specializes or overlaps ‘existence’? If so, why would
you put the label ‘Existence’ on a proposition that merely states three subsumptions? And if not, one would think the more important proposition is the ”inverse”:
Every existent is-a exactly one of entity, characteristic, proposition.
-Ed
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard H. McCullough
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:15 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] FW: mKR2IKL
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
Rand:
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.
mKR:
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
Rand:
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.
mKR:
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
Rand:
Identity :: A is A.
Rand says that this statement is only propositonal
form that can be used for axiomatic concepts.
mKR:
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 f
or 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 |
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|