Pat, (01)
I'll be interested in what Dick's response is to your question. This reminds
me of last year's discussion on this forum regarding what I called
Conceptual Reality, and an even more dynamic/ephemeral subset I called
"Social Reality". You might recall we used the concept of "school district"
as an example, since there is generally no way to use sensory inputs to
determine the location and extent of a school district - one has to consult
some human individual or institutional construct. The current market value
of the buildings inside that school district boundary might be an example of
"social reality" (as opposed to "book" value or "assessed value") because
you need to poll or sample a population of individuals/institutions to
determine that "fact". In an information system context these distinctions
are important because they determine how you can ascertain the current state
of reality important to the objectives and functionality of the information
system in question. Do I get the information from some sensor array, or do I
consult some set of users, or do I Interrogate some institutional surrogate
system (aka "authoritative source" or "enterprise system" )on the network?
The term "augmented reality" has come into use for information systems that
manifest conceptual and social realities as super-positioned visualizations
on top of views of physical reality (so you can "see" or otherwise "sense"
that school district boundary) (02)
Yes, your thoughts are a physical reality, but one would be hard pressed to
use some sensor array to determine what they are without your willingness to
write or vocalize them. More importantly, having everyone else (or at least
most people) accept your enforceable ownership of those thoughts in say, a
copyrighted work, is a conceptual reality. And whether your work is
"popular" or accepted as valuable by some community is a social reality.
Increasingly, networked information systems make these non-physically
detectable realities more broadly accessible and "detectable" through the
contributions of individuals and institutions who implement representations
of conceptual and social reality (and also representations of physical
reality) that are accessible in cyberspace . (03)
Hans (04)
Hans (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:46 AM
To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Richard H. McCullough
Cc: [ontolog-forum]; KR-language; Richard S. Latimer
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysical context (06)
On Apr 10, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote: (07)
> I'm using "physical context" to denote all the propositions which
> describe the external world, independent of man. The propositions
> include the relations which define the
> entity-characteristc-proposition hierarchy which is very helpful in
> organizing our knowledge about the external world. In my definitions,
"characteristic" and "property" are synonyms. (08)
OK, then with this understanding, classes are in the physical context also,
since they are used to describe the external world. In fact, they are what
are often called categories. So for example, the category of being a plant
is a class. (09)
>
> I take physical context propositions to be "real things" because they
> denote facts about the real world. (010)
Careful. There is an important distinction between being real (being in the
world) on the one hand, and being used to denote something real (being ABOUT
the world) on the other. These do not mean the same thing. (This is related
to the two-universes distinction in Common Logic semantics, by the way.)
Which sense do you mean here? (011)
> "entity", "characteristic" and "proposition" are three different kinds
> of real things. Objects in the ordinary sense of the word are entities.
> The more acceptable synonym of "real thing" is "existent".
>
> I take mental/epistemology context to mean looking inside your mind.
> In that context, you have mental objects which are your view of entity,
characteristic, proposition. (012)
I am tempted to ask whether our mental thoughts are also part of the real
world. I sure think that mine are :-) (013)
Pat (014)
> It's hard to avoid getting completely confused thinking about physical
> vs. mental things. You have to remember that it is "your responsibility"
> to identify the physical context propositions by observing what
> happens in the real world.
>
> Dick McCullough
> Context Knowledge Systems
> mKE and the mKR language
> mKR/mKE tutorial
>
> > Subject: Re: metaphysical context
> > From: phayes@xxxxxxx
> > Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:24:53 -0500
> > CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > rslatimer@xxxxxxx
> > To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Richard H. McCullough
<rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > This sounded kind of crazy when it first popped into my mind.
> > > But I think I've really got the right words this time.
> > >
> > > Class of all classes is okay, but it's not part of the physical
> > > context
> >
> > Absolutely. Classes are not physical entities, of course. I'm not sure
what you mean by "context" here, though.
> >
> > > which describes the entity-characteristic-proposition world
> > > external to us.
> >
> > So are propositions objects in the physical world? I find that very
doubtful. And what is a 'characteristic' if not a property or class?
> >
> > > It's part of the epistemology context which describes how our
> > > minds work.
> >
> > Hmm. I would prefer to say that classes are Platonic. I don't see quite
how a mathematical entity can be said to be psychological.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> > > In that context you can say
> > > things like
> > >
> > > Class subClassOf Resource .
> > > Resource subClassOf Class .
> > > Class is Resource .
> > >
> > > But Class is a mental entity, not a physical entity.
> > > You will notice that Class does not appear anywhere in the CPS
> > > hierarchy of
> > >
> > > http://ContextKnowledgeSystems.org/kb/spo.rdf.html
> > >
> > > Dick McCullough
> > > Context Knowledge Systems
> > > mKE and the mKR language
> > > mKR/mKE tutorial
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903(850)434 8903 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416(850)202 4416 office Pensacola
> > (850)202 4440(850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667(850)291 0667
> > mobile (preferred) phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (015)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|