| To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| From: | William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:40:56 -0400 |
| Message-id: | <CALuUwtB14MGPpQfhXuGjr_gFrmB8pYiF6DhMSAdxeaXgXxAwtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Rich Here is the thing.What you are doing very often in this forum is expressing your own, egregiously messy philosophical opinions, and then decry the waste of time that the 'philosophers' on the forum take arguing. In fact, they are usually kindly taking their time to attempt to explain some basic tautologies, to someone who thinks that their own untutored opinions ought to be defended. As Thomas Johnston said, philosophy is front and center in understanding ontology. Did you look up 'categories' in the stanford enclopedia, as he suggested? People who have been taught, at great personal effort, to think and speak clearly simply go orbital when they read something in as deeply confused and confusing as Are you saying that identity must *always* be *unique*? I can identify a handful of sand at the beach without assigning an identity to each grain. All grains look the same to me, therefore all sand has the same identity, so I treat it as a unitless object, and the best I can do to subdivide it is to organize it into specific volumes, weights and prices.They don't even know where to start. Mathew West tried first to respond to this. I did not because I know better what happens. We learn how to carefully parse each sentence for what it could possible mean. It would take a person willing to learn really new ways of thinking, not jumping from one thought to the next, because of some similarity of words, to understand how appalling the question Are you saying that identity must *always* be *unique*?really is. You are using a reification of a relation (identity) and treating it as if it were the name of a thing or type of thing. Then, All grains look the same to me, therefore all sand has the same identity,In most poorly thought out arguments, like this one, the major premise is missing, there is only a minor premise and a conclusion. This means that the major premise is not clearly present in the mind of the arguer, as here. Then, all sand has the same identity, so I treat it as a unitless object,Did you not just identify sand as something that comes in units called grains? Sand as a substance is one thing --- it is easy to carefully think of how we use the word 'sand' as a mass noun or name of a substance, and differentiate this from the many objects that can be composed of the substance, such as grains, bags, truckloads. There is a long, millenia long conversation, among brilliant, careful people, about identity, advancing our knowledge, and have enabled us to do meta mathematics and computational science more effectively. Many of the people on this forum are aware of this. They are referring to that knowledge when they try to explain to you the outrageousness of some of your statements. You think that you can opine about the matter with not only no education on that particular matter, but more importantly, with seemingly **not the least interest* in actually learning how to think logically. For example, you claim that because people have different opinions, that anyone anyone says are 'just' opinions. I tend to think that while Donald Trump and Alan Blinder have different opinions about the role of tariffs (which the Donald calls 'taxes'), they are not 'just two different opinions.' There is even more different between your opining on identity and Frege's "Sense and Reference" that that. What is the difference between the way in which we decide (the identity criteria we use) whether this is the same lock of hair (a thing) and whether this is a sample of human hair (a substance). Philosophy has taught us to understand what a speech act is, also well applied in computational science. And me, personally, knowing that I had nothing to contribute to that millenial long conversation, decided to apply what I learned to engineering. Which is what I do. I find that what I struggled to learn results in better, more extensible systems. And it helps cyber security systems not make mistakes about the identification of the things they need to identify. I come across very few people indeed who are so sure as you that whatever pops into their head should be defended, instead of questioned. If philosophy teaches us anything, it teaches us that. So, I applaud Leo Obrst, when he says Philosophy cannot provide you anything, so don’t worry about it. Wm On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
| Previous by Date: | [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?, Rich Cooper |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages, Rich Cooper |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages, Thomas Johnston |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages, Rich Cooper |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |