[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Intentionality Best Practices

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:15:48 -0400
Message-id: <537FBA84.1090206@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 5/23/2014 4:28 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
I don't know that we can address "intentionality" in any detail (see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/ for a brief, accessible discussion). There is just too much.

For John Bottoms' questions about "intentionality best practices", I guess we must ask him what he has in mind, i.e., to provide more detail about his own intent.
Oh, the "problem statement". Yes, that was the first thing that came to mind. This problem interests me both from a perspective of the domain (urban development), but also from the view of the (2nd hand) speaker. He had expressed the position that they were not able to proceed because of lack of intentionality. Usually, when I hear someone say that they would say something like, "Well, we don't have any visibility on that issue".

In this case it sounds more like the municipal managers do not have a good view on how to reconcile multiple goals in managing the 'town' policies. This comes across as a problem of many complex tasks such as "intelligent search". The problem space is interlocked with domain issues, untyped data and lack of consensus on what the searcher should be searching for. In practice the stakeholders need to hold a quorum on identifying the issues and prioritizing them approaches toward solutions.

At this point I am waiting for more information concerning the missing problem statement. It appears there are enterprise and government problems that face roadblocks because they can't see a way toward solutions. Typically the scope of internal policies are insufficient to proceed in an informed manner so town managers invoke Cunningham's Law. It states that if you don't know the right action, then proceed anyway and someone will make you aware of what you have overlooked. I believe this is usually presented as a "straw-man" or "draft proposition".

<rant> I find this interesting because we generally talk about published ontologies which have gone through the publishing process. But, we also need ontologies for messy propositions where issues can be discussed and people can freely voice arguments while new data is being discovered. This should allow backtracking on publicly expressed platforms. If ontologies are reserved for completed discussions, then we have left the ontological work to the tail end of the process. I believe ontologists should be involved up-front.</rant>

This leaves me with the other issue concerning implementation of an intentionality. Given my view of the framework of an open discussion, it seems like it should be possible to construct a rubric of the Roberts Rules of Order in an ontological style. Maybe that should be the way to proceed.

-John Bottoms
 FirstStar Systems
 Concord, MA

Thanks, Leo
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mills Davis
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:01 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Intentionality Best Practices


Further, intentionality is key to axiology and human reasoning about values.


On May 23, 2014, at 3:30 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 5/22/2014 9:40 AM, John Bottoms wrote:
I have come across some views that intentionality is difficult or
impossible to implement.
It's difficult or impossible for those philosophers who try to
eliminate anything that is "unscientific" or "anthropomorphic".
Since intentionality, by definition, depends on somebody's intention,
it is, by definition, anthropomorphic -- or at least zoomorphic.

But without recognizing the importance of intentionality, it's
impossible to define anything that depends on goals or purpose.
That includes business, law, government, economics, and life.

There appear to be a number of candidate reasons including lack of
consensus, issues with dualism, ambiguity of language or implementation
using FOL.
The lack of consensus is the result of the half century of behaviorism
in the early part of the 20th c.  In the late 19th c, there were many
enlightened philosophers such as Peirce, Brentano, and their followers
who understood the issues.  Husserl was a student of Brentano's, and
he did his best to reconcile intentionality with the onslaught of

Some of Husserl's students, such as Heidegger, went off the deep end
with those methods.  The net result is that most analytic philosophers
were scared of mentioning anything that might trigger a criticism that
they were being "unscientific".  Fortunately, scientists like Einstein
had no fear of being unscientific.  Einstein criticized philosophers
like Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell for their "Angst" about such

More recently, philosophers like John Searle have been getting back to
intentionality.  But many are still too timid about being criticized
by the so-called "mainstream" of analytic philosophy (i.e, the people
who control tenure and promotion). For some discussion and references,
see http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf

I discuss some issues about Searle, Carnap, and others in



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>