> >From a use-case point of view, it is not really interesting if the "concept"
>of rabbit existed before man, what is interesting is our success at
>communicating information and that requires sharing concepts. To do so
>requires agreement on the concept and that implies some mechanism of
>identifying a concept and specification of that concept (even a weak form of
>specification such as examples).
>And to come back home - "class" and "type" are just terms, not the concept. (01)
As I have argued at length, e.g. in (02)
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/Beyond_Concepts.pdf (03)
the muddle surrounding the misuse of the term "concept" has created
havoc and waste in some of the most well-funded ontological endeavors
thus far (which are in the area of biomedicine, and centrally in what
is called the Unified Medical Language System). I invite Cory to look
at these arguments, to see why his proposed solution is not good
enough even from a 'use-case point of view'.
BS (04)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
>Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:23 PM
>To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
>Subject: Re: Intension and Extension (Was RE: [ontac-forum] Type vs.Class -
>last chance to vote. )
>
>At 07:35 PM 1/22/2006, you wrote:
> >Berry,
> >re:
> > >If 'rabbit' refers to a type, and if rabbit instances existed before
> > >human beings, and if rabbits were able to recognize other instances
> > >of like type (e.g. for dating purposes) then the type rabbit existed
> > >before any definition was formulated. Talk of types should thus not
> > >rely too much on talk of definitions/intensions. Indeed there are
> > >many types in biomedicine for which definitions have not yet been
> > >supplied, and many types in all domains for which incorrect
> > >definitions have been (or were for many centuries) supplied.
> >
> >[[CBC] ] While a bunch of furry creatures may have existed long ago, the
> >concept of how these individuals are related is not part of the natural
> >world.
>
>Bravo, Cory, you have recognized that there were no concepts before
>concept-using animals like ourselves came upon the scene.
>Technically, this is called "the gem".
>
> > That we may decide that a set of individuals is sufficiently "more
> >similar" such that we classify them under a common term and concept it is a
> >tool WE use that is a basis for how WE think and how WE communicate.
>
>Indeed.
>
> >Certainly the first classification, one common to living things is "food",
> >to a lion the distinction between "food" and "rabbit" may not even exist.
> >Some pre-human may have had a thought or grunt for "Rabbit food", and thus
> >was born the CONCEPT.
> >When we communicate such concepts we may do so by example (see, the things
> >in this box are the "rabbit" I was talking about) or by definition. Both
> >are ways to communicate and clarify the concept that we have in OUR MINDS
>or
> >OUR logical formalisms. Classification by example appears to be how we
> >learn, but isn't this discipline about being a bit more precise?
> >So it would seem to me there are 5 things in play;
> >* An actual thing - jumping across my lawn
> >* A concept for a kind/classification/type of things - rabbit
> >* A definition for the concept - Small mammal, etc.
> >* Sets of things - creatures in a box
> >* A set of individuals satisfying a concept - "extent".
> >* Terms for the concept - EN:"Rabbit", FR:"Lapin"
>
>Can you give me an account of how rabbits recognize other rabbits,
>for mating purposes, when they only have the above to work with. (In
>practice, of course, they only have the first, and perhaps also the fourth.)
>
> >A concept <HAS> terms, definitions, sets and <AN> extent.
> >
> >What was proposed but seem invalid is that we can always deduce equivalence
> >of concepts by equivalence of individuals. This would not work where there
> >is more than one possible aspect of the same individual or where there is
> >change. Perhaps there is a special kind of type where this kind of
> >assumption can be made. This special kind of type would have to have
> >individuals completely defined by a single definition and thus not
> >correspond to an individual in the real world. One example of such types
>is
> >the enumerated types found in programming languages. "Color" may be an
> >example of such a type, but I am not sure yet. I am mostly sure "Rabbit"
>is
> >NOT one of those types. So the more general concept is the type that does
> >not contain this assumption.
>
>Biologists are not investigating concepts.
>They are investigating reality. They discover that this reality
>contains natural kinds, and their instances. Many of these natural
>kinds, and their instances, existed many billions of years before
>concept-using animals came on the scene.
>BS
>
>
>
>
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|