On 5/23/2014 4:28 PM, Obrst, Leo J.
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
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.
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
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.
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mills Davis
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:01 PM
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
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,
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/
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)