Dear Barry, (01)
> I was just quoting you yourself, Matthew: (02)
How when none of the words were mine? Where did I say there were no
dogs? Where did I talk of "doggy processes"? (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> Sent: 14 January 2006 09:03
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be
> inexplicable
>
>
> At 06:14 PM 1/13/2006, you wrote:
> >Dear Barry,
> >
> > > I also submit that, given the need to acquire users of whatever
> > > results from our work, most of whom will not be specialists in
> > > ontology, the need to be consistent with a four-dimensionalist
> > > ontology according to which there are no dogs but only doggy
> > > processes, is not a sensible constraint.
> >
> >If this gross misrepresentation of a 4D position were true then
> >this might be reasonable. Fortunately it is just a misrepresentation
> >which you rather boringly put on 4 Dimensionalists so that you can
> >make fun of it. It is an old trick which I find not really very
> >clever.
>
> I was just quoting you yourself, Matthew:
>
> >Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:27:33 -0000
> >From: "West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >How do you express:
> > > > > > "Fido is a dog."
> > > >
> > > >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).
> > >
> > > > >MW: Fido is both a physical_object and an activity
> (living process).
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "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).
> > >
> > >
> > > So two Fidos? Does Bill Clinton have two daughters?
> >
> >MW: You missinterpret. I mean there are two dog classes, one with my
> >4D extents, and one with your 3D continuant. If we don't
> distinguish these
> >classes, then we could indeed double count.
>
> ...
>
> >MW: Well I talk to myself, and I am my living process.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
> To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
> Community Wiki:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCo
ordinatingWG (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (07)
|