Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontolog

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

John

• Some of these answers, especially about limiting experiences on this planet helped me as well.
• Differentiation is good science and realizing the usefulness of synthesis likewise, sum of the two is  - knowledge?
• Is knowledge only what is confirmed (Ed's mail) by many participants?

Regards,

Ravi

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 7/2/15 2:21 PM, Matthew West wrote:

Dear Kingsley,

 

On 6/30/15 9:21 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:

Not sure this is going to get us far, but I still cannot make much sense of "But the point is that none of it is about objective reality or objective truth.  It is about the world as seen by the people and software that have to communicate." Don't we see/sense the same world?

No we don't.

[MW>] That’s a big statement. Would you care to back it up with some evidence, rather than just assume it is a self evident truth?

That's Ed's fundamental point. The very same point made by John Sowa, Patrick Hayes and others --  in a variety of posts over the years.

[MW>] I’m not sure I’ve heard them say that either. Care to give specific quotes?

In my view it is a really big thing to say that we do not together inhabit some common world. We might experience it in different ways, but to say that what we experience is different is quite another thing.

Hi Matthew,

I am not saying we don't have commonality (of course we do). I am saying that we are fundamentally individuals, at the root (or fundamental core).

We accept or reject theories about the world. ?

[MW>] Sure, but it seemed to me you were suggesting that there was not one world/reality the theories were about. Are you suggesting that?

I am suggesting that there are common theories to which we subscribe, and all of that exists above individuality (which is the root). There can be many world views that overlap. I don't know about a "single world" to which everyone one agrees though which is why heterogeneity is the spice of life :)

For instance, to communicate effectively we accept agree upon methods for systematic encoding and decoding information via signs, syntax, and semantics.

[MW>] Yes, but what about what they are signs syntax and semantics about?

The systematic use of signs, sytntax, and semantics are what constitute the tool we know as Language -- a powerful tool that we use to encode and decode observations re., communication.

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile

_________________________________________________________________
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)