[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:27:01 +0100
Message-id: <phismith$$.>

> > >How do you express:
> > >                      "Fido is a dog."
> >
> > Fido instance_of dog
> >
> > 'Fido' names an independent continuant (particular)
> > 'dog' names a type (universal, kind ...)
>MW: Fido classified_as dog
>MW: Fido names a possible_individual (spatio-temporal extent) (we do
>not know from the context whether or not it is an actual_individual, i.e.
>part of our world, or hypothetical, i.e. part of some other possible_world).    (01)

'Dog' means dog; not possible dog, hypothetical dog, dog in Russian 
fiction, etc.    (02)

There is a Californian sect called 'general semantics', run by a guru 
called Count Korzybski. One of Korzybski's principles is that all 
language is vague, and to make this clear he insists that all members 
of the sect conclude every sentence with the word 'etc.', etc.    (03)

Matthew is making the same mistake. He thinks we should include with 
every noun the term 'actual'.    (04)

>MW: Fido is both a physical_object and an activity (living process).    (05)

Sigh.    (06)

>MW: Dog names a class (universal, kind ...) (But of course the members are
>different from Barry's).    (07)

So no distinction between a universal and its extension?
And shouldn't that be    (08)

'Dog' names a class    (09)

> >
> >
> >
> > >                      "All dogs are animals."
> >
> > for all x, if x instance_of dog then x instance_of animal
> >
> > for short:
> > dog is_a animal
>MW: Agreed (but remembering there are two "dog"s).    (010)

So two Fidos? Does Bill Clinton have two daughters?    (011)

> >
> >
> > >                      "Dog is a ..."  (if that's even allowed)
> >
> > In BFO we pass over the issue of second-order universals for the
> > immediate future.
>MW: Dog instance_of class_of_organism
>MW: Being a data model, ISO 15926 has entity types that have instances,
>hence instance_of here rather than classified_by elswhere.
>Classified_by is used when both the class and its member are instances
>of entity types. This is just an artefact of the representation formalism.
>There is no ontological difference between instance_of and classified_by.
> >
> > Some more:
> >                  Fido is sleeping
> >
> > There is some x, Fido agent_of x and x instance_of sleeping event
> > (occurrent particular)
>MW: There is some x that is a state (temporal part of) fido.
>MW: x classified_as sleeping
> >
> >                  sleeping is a process
> >
> > sleeping is_a process (occurrent)
>MW: sleeping is_a(n) activity
>MW: sleeping instance_of class_of_activity
>MW: I anticipate activity and process are synonyms under their
>intended meaning here, though again, since the members seem to be distinct
>they are somehow the same but different. (I don't think Barry would allow
>that the sleeping process is a temporal part of Fido as a physical object,
>though he would probably allow a second Fido Living Process that would relate,
>but would not be a physical object as an ISO 15926 Fido would be).    (012)

Yes. I talk to biologists. I have learned to distinguish between an 
organism and its life.
BS     (013)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (014)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>