Dick,
Upon reflection, I realize that you used “is a” to mean “is defined to be a”, while I understood it to mean “is a kind of”. I suspect that both of these interpretations
of is-a exist in different AI communities. I fully agree that ‘is defined to be’ is symmetric.
-Ed
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:48 PM
To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR2IKL
Dick,
We have a communication problem here. In the AI community (and many others), a statement does not imply its inverse.
Dog is-a Animal
does not imply
Animal is-a Dog
Similarly,
Dog, cat, horse is-a animal
can be true without eliminating the possibility that Pig is-a animal, as well.
In the AI community with which I am familiar, it is customary to state a symmetric relationship with “if and only if”, e.g.
A thing isc existent iff it isc entity, characteristic, proposition
(if I understand the use of “isc” correctly, and the commas symbolize ‘or’). That is why I was confused.
One other observation: Facts are different from propositions. In some circles, a ‘fact’ is an actual state of the world, whether it is perceived or not.
In other circles, a ‘fact’ is a proposition that is “taken to be true”, i.e., perceived/accepted as true by a person or persons. People conceive propositions that may not be true, and they may take them only to be hypotheses (for whatever purpose, including
disproof), or they may take them to be true (lacking knowledge to the contrary). I’m pretty sure that Rand’s ‘facts independent of man’ are of the first kind: actualities. (Rand does not argue that the world is only what we perceive.) In your tripartite
ontology, I would think a ‘fact’/actuality/state is an entity, not a proposition.
-Ed
Ed
In retrospect, I can see where I confused you, by using the phrase "essential species".
The only reason for choosing my original proposition over the inverse
is that "isa" is a familiar term to any one in the AI community.
Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial
From:
rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 09:00:23 -0700
Subject: [ontolog-forum] oops: RE: FW: mKR2IKL
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 sta tes 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
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< /p>
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 o f 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 Vo lume 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.
>
> Followin g 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
> coul d 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 jo in:
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)
|