Azamat,
I agree; there are so many ways of "understanding"
just about everything. They all seem similar until you dig deeper.
The new HoloLens(tm) in the MS product release plans for this
summer will complicate it even more by making every one of us more expressively
interact with computers. The ontologies they describe have domain based
concepts, nothing ethereal like the one true ontology so few continue to
subscribe to.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
Abdoullaev
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 11:56 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10
"Logical is Real, and Real is Logical" is
upgrading now to "Virtual is Real, and Real is Virtual".
Many classical philosophical ideas and logical systems are
to be reviewed completely with emerging technologies.
The world is changing so fast that the human mind is failing
to follow its pace, confusing itself with obsolete world views.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Edward Barkmeyer <ebarkmeyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
To
follow up on Matthew’s position, I would say it a bit more strongly.
Logical
existence is a mathematical notion. It characterizes things as being
included in your chosen universe of discourse, which may thus serve as
referents of logical variables quantified by ‘exists’ and ‘(for)all’, full
stop. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophical notions of
existence, metaphysics and ontology, UNTIL you import formal logical methods
into your philosophical arguments. Proofs of existence of objects in a
mathematical space are about an intentionally theoretical universe of
discourse, which may or may not be founded in anything considered to be “real”
or “actual”. Conversely, when you use quantified logic in philosophical
arguments, you have to define your universe of discourse – what things “exist”
in your philosophy.
The
fact that Greek philosophers did not clearly separate these ideas because they
were exploring both of them more or less simultaneously does not excuse our
creating similar confusion. One word “existence”; two (or more)
importantly different concepts.
When
Hamlet says “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy”, he is only saying that his personal UoD for
reasoning about observed events includes things that Horatio’s colder
realism does not.
-Ed
MW>] I take logical existence to mean the things you can talk
about, which is different from do things exist in the sense of being able to
kick them.
Ah, I take it that you are alluding to Dr. Johnson's refutation
of Berkeley's idealist metaphysics.
1) Do prime numbers and compassion exist as more than
"things you can talk about"? You certainly can't kick them. Do they
not exist at all, then? Do they exist in some sense that is less
"real" than the sense in which things you can kick exist?
2) For anything that has more than "logical
existence", how do we discover anything about it that we can then talk
about? How can we "see" what things are like independently of the
perceptual gestalts (in the case of sense-data-accessible objects) and the
conceptual gestalts that we use to think about them and make judgments about
them? And if we can't see what things are like independently of these gestalts,
then how can we say anything at all about what they are like -- really like,
independent of the distorting effects of our gestalts?
This takes us back to Kant, who concluded that we could say
nothing about the thing-in-itself (the ding-an-sich). And then on to the German
Idealists who concluded that, in that case, why distinguish between things as
we judge them to be and things as they are in themselves? Why not just drop the
ding-an-sich?
So, mutatis mutandis, why distinguish between "logical
existence" and "things exist(ing) in the sense of being able to kick
them"?
3) Supposing you want to make the distinction regardless, to
what use would you put it? How would holding that distinction cause an ontology
engineer to build different things than he would have built had he not held
that distinction?
I think the real question is “What does it mean to exist in a
logical context?”
LO> I think Quine had it mostly right, as Thomas mentioned,
because he (Quine) tried to connect the semantics to the underlying ontological
referents (once again, as many have tried) by using logic and the objects
quantified over. However, I don’t think that is quite right, since at least to
my mind, you can quantify over notions that you don’t really think exist, ever
or even potentially (and so logic is a language for describing, not a language
for telling you what there is). However, logic does allow you to have access to
those things, and if you quantify over them, then they are at least candidates
for real things, i.e, they provide a kind of low level entry for ontological
commitment. So an ontology is a logical theory, yes, but about something in the
real world. The “logical theory” part of that is easier than the “real world”
part.
[MW>] I take logical existence to mean the things you can
talk about, which is different from do things exist in the sense of being able
to kick them.
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|