Ah Deutsch. Sehr gut! Schade, die meisten Leute hier nur Englisch
sprechen. Oh wie Shade. (01)
Seit Ontologie muss in mehreren Sprachen , koennte es sinnvoll sein , um
es in Deutsch ab und zu diskutieren. (02)
Tschuss! (03)
Duane
***********************************
Technoracle Advanced Systems Inc.
Consulting and Contracting; Proven Results!
i. Neo4J, PDF, Java, LiveCycle ES, Flex, AIR, CQ5 & Mobile
b. http://technoracle.blogspot.com
t. @duanenickull (04)
On 2015-03-19, 7:20 AM, "Belgiu Mariana" <Mariana.Belgiu2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
>Kennst du sie?
>
>-----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
>
>Dear Matthew,
>
>I agree with your analysis, except for the value judgment 'blame'.
>
>> 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) ...
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>> but this is OK because we understand the presentist context
>> (which computers don't necessarily).
>
>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.
>
>> 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.
>
>Most people ignore philosophers. What programmers encode
>in their software is based on what people were doing for
>centuries before computers became available:
>
> 1. Scientific programming in FORTRAN automated the methods
> that scientists and engineers had always used.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>> 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.
>
>That question is only relevant within a single microtheory.
>
>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.
>
>John
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|