cuo-wg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

To: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: common upper ontology working group <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:26:14 -0600
Message-id: <p06230901c193579c77e3@[10.100.0.128]>
>Re: The problem with things like these philosophical kind of 
>divergences at the upper-middle level is that ordinary ideas like 
>'physical object' or 'human' turn out to have different properties 
>in the different frameworks.    (01)

Quite. These 'ordinary' notions are never quite as ordinary-seeming 
once they get formalized.    (02)

>This seems to confuse divergence of terms with divergence of concepts.    (03)

Im not sure I follow your distinction here. Do you mean that there is 
a single concept of, say 'human', and that the various approaches are 
just different terminologies? Because if so, that is not correct. 
There isnt a single notion of (for example) 'human', or 'physical 
object', etc.. There are many, and they are genuinely different.    (04)

>  We certainly know the binding of term to concept is context sensitive    (05)

Again I don't follow. What do you mean by 'context' here? I wasn't 
intending to refer to any notion of context that I understand.    (06)

>- but the concepts enumerated are not the same and do not, in my 
>mind, point to "philosophical kind of divergences".  They are 
>divergences in the binding of the term to the concept.    (07)

No, they are differences between different concepts. The idea of a 
continuant and of (as it is sometimes called) a 4-d worm, are 
absolutely, irreconcilably, at odds with one another. If you believe 
in one of them, the other is *logically* impossible.    (08)

>  The simpler ontology does not have the fully developed set of 
>concepts (human-A-continuant, human-A-occurrent) but maps well to 
>one of those concepts - so I don't see the incompatibility.    (09)

The details of the incompatibility have been thoroughly explored. 
Basically, a continuant is the same thing at different times, so in 
the 4-d view of things its properties can't change: but they do. 
There was an edited version of a long email discussion about this 
stuff at    (010)

http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/dialog-3d-4d.html    (011)

(although that link seems now to be broken, there is a backup copy at 
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/Endurantism&PerdurantismDebate2002.pdf) 
and you might find this interesting reading also:    (012)

http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/resources/UpperOntologyUseLong.doc    (013)

Pat    (014)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (015)


 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG    (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>