ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Belgiu Mariana <Mariana.Belgiu2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:23:36 +0000
Message-id: <14041EBEE70399499E848AB28D8565B10105166F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I apologize...it was a mistake    (01)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Belgiu Mariana
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. März 2015 15:20
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments 
on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies    (02)

Kennst du sie?    (03)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. März 2015 15:12
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments 
on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies    (04)

Dear Matthew,    (05)

I agree with your analysis, except for the value judgment 'blame'.    (06)

> I think it is our language and the most efficient ways of talking 
> about things that are to blame. A lot of the time our practical speech 
> is about how things are now, so a lot of our speech is presentist in 
> nature, simply because this is the most efficient (fewest words to 
> convey) ...    (07)

All life forms from bacteria to humans are intimately connected with the world 
in the present.  All our senses tell us about the present, and all our actions 
respond to and exert their effects upon the present.  The past exists only in 
memory, and the future exists only in our imagination.    (08)

Language reflects what we're thinking at the moment we speak.
It's inevitable that talk in the present tense about the immediate context will 
dominate what anybody says.    (09)

> but this is OK because we understand the presentist context (which 
> computers don't necessarily).    (010)

Computation by a computer is executed in time, but the connection of the 
present bits to anything in the world depends on what some programmer decided 
to encode.  Any encoding is chosen for some purpose or goal.  And there is no 
limit to the variety of goals and useful ways of reaching them.    (011)

> I do think the philosophers are responsible for endurantism.
> They analysed the way we speak about the world, rather than how the 
> world is, and formalised that.  I despair.    (012)

Most people ignore philosophers.  What programmers encode in their software is 
based on what people were doing for centuries before computers became available:    (013)

  1. Scientific programming in FORTRAN automated the methods
     that scientists and engineers had always used.    (014)

  2. Business programming in COBOL automated what bankers and
     accountants had encoded in punched cards, which automated
     the methods that had evolved since the Renaissance bankers
     and accountants with counting tables and ledgers.    (015)

  3. AI programming in LISP automated the methods proposed by
     logicians, linguists, and mathematicians.  The word 'ontology'
     crept into the comp. sci. literature very late, and it has had
     very little influence -- even today.    (016)

> We switch between these different ways of speaking about things 
> without worrying about the inconsistency of these different 
> expressions because we don't appreciate the commitments that are 
> implicit in these different modes of speech and we don't have to check 
> what we are saying with a reasoner.    (017)

Inconsistencies arise only when you attempt to do deep, detailed, extended 
chains of reasoning.  Such reasoning is only possible within a single, highly 
specialized microtheory for a very specific purpose.    (018)

> No one ... is arguing that you cannot have both physical objects and 
> activities in your ontology, the question is whether they are mutually 
> exclusive or not.    (019)

That question is only relevant within a single microtheory.    (020)

Any system that depends on whether some independently developed system makes 
one assumption or the other is doomed to be extremely fragile, unreliable, and 
unusable.    (021)

John    (022)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (023)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (024)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (025)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>