Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element
"azamat abdoullaev" <[email protected]> Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:17:05 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <003f01c52fed$aa105980$9b028d0a@HOMEPC> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C52FFE.6D53E320
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating ElementGary,=20
See my comments below.
Azamat
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: azamat abdoullaev=20
Cc: [email protected] ; =
[email protected]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Azamat,
=20
Your illustrations helped me understand your approach to these very =
difficult topics of primitive/fundamental ideas that ground an upper =
ontology. As in the quantum realm our naked commonsense may not serve =
us well here but a consistent exploration of different, fallible =
hypotheses of these fundamentals concept should do it. This might =
include, to use Thagard=E2=80=99s (1992) related discovery methods, =
-data-driven (generalizations from observation and from experiments with =
ontologies, abductive processes to explain patterns, and =
coherence-driven corrections to resolve contradictions arising between =
hypotheses and observation. We then attempt to restore consistency =
adapting, removing or modifying one or more assumptions which are =
judged contributes to the derivation of contradiction.
This method is old as the Greek world, Aristotle drawn such elemental =
classes as substance, state, quality, quantity, change, and relation =
from experience, seemingly from verbal classification of Greek grammar. =
And they mold the matrix of human experience and knowledge, all forms of =
thought. Alternatively, Kant proposed his table of categories as pure =
concept of human understanding with some modifications, lifting the =
class of relations over substances. As a result, no good formal and =
general ontology can do without substances, states, changes, and =
relations.
=20
=20
To put this back, for a moment, in the philosophical contexts we =
started with in earlier messages, I would add an idea from Clarence =
Lewis =E2=80=98s "A Pragmatic Conception of the a priori," where he =
rejects Kantian concepts of the a priori arguing that=E2=80=9D=20
=20
"The thought which both rationalism and empiricism have missed is that =
there are principles, representing the initiative of mind, which impose =
upon experience no limitations whatever, but that such conceptions are =
still subject to alternation on pragmatic grounds when the expanding =
boundaries of experience reveal their felicity as intellectual =
instruments." Underlining is mine.
=20
Thus, paraphrasing some of Lewis=E2=80=99s work and its interpretation =
by others, what is important about an hypothesis, including ones on =
primitive ontological hypotheses, is that it is a "concept" -- a purely =
logical meaning -- which we bring to bear on experience. The concepts we =
formulate are in part determined by our immediate, pragmatic interests =
and in part by the historical nature of individual experience as =
researchers. In the sense Sowa has talked about fundamental scientific =
laws they are outside our methods (a priori in a sense) because they =
order experience in a way that can be investigated consistently across =
all of our historical experience and our pragmatic interests at the =
time.=20
=20
It=E2=80=99s a knowledge hypothesis that this type of ordering would =
be true of our more fundamental categorical notions =E2=80=93 the ones =
we need for an upper ontology. We formulate such upper level concepts =
based on our experience and the pragamatics of the time, but our =
intuition is that we arrive at what we will call a ontological primitive =
concept that transcends these pragmatic starting points.
It is not so important how the concepts formulated in the human mind, by =
pure thought, intutition, experience or experiment, or under divine =
inspiration. What is crucial, ontological concepts must represent the =
basic kinds of reality, they have to mean real distinctions and =
differences. And so to be the master terms whereby any cognitive agent =
can effectively reason about the world.
=20
BTW, this discussion has mostly slipped beyond the Idealism vs. =
Materialism back to one more direct toward the pragmatics of developing =
upper ontological topics.=20
I agree, but never mind. If you like, just change the subject name.
Best.
1=20
Regards,
Gary=20
=20
-----Original Message-----=20
From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Tue 3/22/2005 1:26 PM=20
To: Gary Berg-Cross=20
Cc: [email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
Subject: Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Gary,
Let me clear up the matter in a more illustrative way.
Traditionally, reality is separated into two or three disjoint =
divisions of the same rank and status:
1. as concrete individuals (as contingent things) and universals (as =
necessary things);
2. as concrete things, collections (or classes or sets) of concrete =
things (concrete universals) and abstract, conceptual classes, or =
universals per se.=20
Written in abbreviated forms, the above may be presented as the CC =
(concrete and conceivable) schema or the CCC (concrete, collective, and =
conceivable) perspective of reality; what is commonly expressed in the =
natural languages as concrete names, collective names, and abstract =
names. Then most existent general and upper ontologies, like the OWL and =
SUO, can be assigned to the CC or CCC schemas, closing the bottom with =
nothing or nonentity, the top with the concept of individual thing or =
entity.=20
Evidently, we need to consider the things in the right order of =
their presentation, neither as an equal-order separation nor in the =
inverse order, commencing from the concrete objects, properties, and =
events, and specific relations to the abstract ontological classes of =
substance, state, change, and relation. The order of things here makes =
all the difference; after all, a young woman personality may be quite =
different depending on the order of occurrences of her life experiences: =
becoming a mother, a college graduation, and becoming a wife.
We have to lift up Entity or Thing or Being as the topmost class of =
all classes complemented with the concept of nothing (the null class as =
part of everything, which has nothing to do with absurdity). The =
ultimate class of thing or entity will then denote a single, unitary =
ontological category having as its parts the entity classes and the =
relationship classes, as well as all the infinite gamut of their =
instances and occurrences. We thus attached to the scientific way of =
considering reality as the whole class of entity consisting of entity =
classes and relationship classes, all together constituting the nature =
and essence of the individual things in the real world. So to have a =
universal ontology, you have just follow the C/C/C descending model of =
the world, where sets and individuals are only instantiations or =
representations of the entity-universal, that is, they must be =
considered of much lower rank in the ontological status.
Note when sets and individuals are recognized as basic as =
universals, we are doomed to create redundant entities and =
relationships, i.e., an imaginary world of nonexistent things, while =
trying to construct a formal general ontology language, like GOL, an =
otherwise interesting project.
So it looks that your second reading is closer to the point.
Regarding you entity classification (or rather object?), maybe it =
would of use at your top to divide objects into two wide categories, =
material, spatial substances and nonspatial, conceptual objects, and =
somehow include the term 'representation' as well, before 'icon'.For =
more particulars, visit my website: 'Standard Ontology for Global =
Intelligent Cyberspace'.
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: azamat abdoullaev=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Azamat,
>You are raising intriguing questions regarding meaning and =
processible ontologies. I hope my short contribution will make the =
picture clearer.
Thanks for the kind words. From what you wrote signs we may share =
some ideas from the semiotics realm and connecting this to what you =
called =E2=80=9Contological linguistics=E2=80=9D, - a new phrase for me, =
but if its subject matter is =E2=80=9Contological grammar, syntax, and =
real valued semantics) this sounds like the issues that the development =
of such things as OWL struggle although you might have to spell out what =
you mean by and real valued semantics.=20
AA>In the ontological language, real meaning is fixed as the =
semantic values of signs, determined by the entities and relationships =
in the real world.
Are you talking about relating signs to the set-theoretic =
(logical) aspect of an ontology? That is using signs in the ontology =
construction as a formal logical system composed of its =
objects-primitives, classes, individuals, and properties, logical syntax =
(notation techniques, formation and transformation rules), and formal =
semantics (model theory), such as the OWL is doing?
Another way of speaking about this is to imagine using =
=E2=80=9Csign meaning=E2=80=9D to develop a =E2=80=9Cmeaningful=E2=80=9D =
primitives Entity, Thing etc. the kinds of objects with fundamental =
definitions, axioms and those =E2=80=9Creal-world semantics=E2=80=9D you =
mentioned. This allows a common interpretation by humans and systems =
of the ontological theory and its truth conditions in the world of =
things, entities, or beings.=20
BTW, given that we want to discuss signs and symbols our ontology =
will include concepts like =E2=80=9Ccontentbearing objects: such as in =
the small taxonomic part shown below (just to connect to the linguistic =
part of ontology)
=E2=80=A2 Entity
Physical
Object
ContentBearingObject
Icon
SymbolicString
LinguisticExpression
WrittenLinguisticExpression
Text
Sentence
Phrase
Word
Morpheme =20
Regards,
Gary Berg-Cross
-----Original Message-----=20
From: azamat abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Mon 3/21/2005 4:11 PM=20
To: Gary Berg-Cross=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Subject: Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
Dear Gary,
You are raising intriguing questions regarding meaning and =
processible ontologies. I hope my short contribution will make the =
picture clearer.=20
To have correct understanding of knowledge, meaning ought to be =
viewed as a meaning relation between signs (symbols, words or ideas, =
thoughts) and things in the real world. Any relation by nature is =
two-sided or bi-directional (from signs to things as well as form things =
to signs). The ontological perspective comes out here as most =
fundamental; for it is mapping the real structures to the sign =
structures (which include conceptual structures). This is the subject =
matter of ontological linguistics (ontological grammar, syntax, and real =
valued semantics), which shouldn't be mixed with its complement, =
linguistic ontology. In the ontological language, real meaning is fixed =
as the semantic values of signs, determined by the entities and =
relationships in the real world. Once the sign structures with their =
associations in a certain domain knowledge are sorted out as truly =
conforming to the ontological structures, you can enjoy a =
machine-processible ontology.
The second issue is inherently connected with the successful =
resolution of the first one.=20
Materialism-Idealism distinction is the result of an innate =
tendency of the human mind to all sorts of dichotomy and duality. This =
opposite division is a bad heritage of classic metaphysics, born by the =
confused polarity of all things as abstract, ideal realities (froms, =
ideas) and material, physical realities. The practice of modern science =
is inclined to deny as the only reality either ideas or matter, where =
one exists as subordinate to another. The task of general formal =
ontology is to view the abstract entities and the concrete things as =
two parts of one real world, as two distinct domains of reality, the =
universe of matter and the universe of mind, somehow interrelated to =
each other. And the concepts of mind and matter should be synthesized =
not within materialism or idealism but rather within a general =
ontological theory encompassing both parts as distinct levels within an =
all-comprehensive hierarchy of things.
After all, to comprehend the general rules, principles, and =
mechanisms of such relationships (ideality-actuality) is the challenging =
undertaking for all who signed up for ontology classes.=20
Regards,
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems LTD
http://www.eis.com.cy
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gary Berg-Cross=20
To: Chris Lofting ; [email protected]=20
Cc: [email protected]=20
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the =
Differentiating Element
This discussion, along with Re: nature -> "human brain" -> =
"language terms" =3D=3D>> knowledge ?,
has wandered over considerable ground but a question was =
raised along the way about =E2=80=9Chow then we should model =
meaning?.=E2=80=9D
One issue was can "knowledge" ("reality" yes, but not =
"knowledge") exist independently of the brain?
A simple counter question occurred to me, =E2=80=9Cif such =
knowledge can[t be defined how why are trying to build processable =
ontologies ? Isn=E2=80=99t that a endeavor to capture meaning outside =
of the brain?
John Sowa covered this in passing, noting that our computer =
applications include =E2=80=9Cknowledge=E2=80=9D=20
JS> First, knowledge is certainly codifiable in a way that
solves a great many problems. Every program ever written
does that, and there are an enormous number of very
successful ones. But each of those programs solves a
particular special case. The problem we face is to
relate those special cases by general principles.
JS>And that is where the difficulties lie.
Peirce=E2=80=99s distinction between REAL and TRUE may be =
helpful to some of us in ontological community discussion with an aim =
to building up usable knowledge . =20
Perice "The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, =
information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is =
therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very =
origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception =
essentially involves the notion of a community, without definite limits, =
and capable of a definite increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311).=20
To elaborate further this is now he addressed the distinction =
between opinions on the true, and the real in "How to Make Our Ideas =
Clear ":=20
"The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all =
who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object =
represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain =
reality" (CP 5.407). =E2=80=A6.=20
Peirce continues later with=20
"reality is independent, not necessarily of thought in =
general, but only of what you or I or any finite number of men may think =
about it," =E2=80=A6.(that), "though the object of the final opinion =
depends on what that opinion is, yet what that opinion is does not =
depend on what you or I or any man thinks" (CP 5.408). underlining is =
mine for emphasis
Which brings me, at least, back to John=E2=80=99s opinion =
that he accuracy of any scientific hypothesis
JS> does not depend
> on who or what discovered it or on any methods of =
thinking,
> any techniques of problem solving, or any apparatus that
JS> he, she, or it might have used to arrive at the =
hypothesis.
I can understand this in light of Peirce=E2=80=99 efforts to =
define clear thinking, which we need in Ontology building.
To conclude with yet another Peircian quote. Here=E2=80=99s =
one he used on the path to a 3rd way between the realists and idealist.
The philosophical problem is to resolve two contradictory =
claims about the basis of reality:=20
1.. the principal thesis of realism - there is a reality =
that exists independently of our representations of it or=20
2.. Idealism claim that what we perceive as real dependent =
is upon our (usually expressed as mental) representations of =
=E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D.=20
As James Liszka observed the clash of the two theses is nicely =
expressed in Peirce's "Consequences of the Four Incapacities ":
"...there is no thing which is in-itself in the sense of not =
being relative to the mind, though things which are relative to the mind =
doubtless are, apart from the relation" (5.311).=20
Liszkae called this 3rd way a discursive realism to =
distinguish it from the later effort of Rorty or Foucault, in which =
there is neither a privileged discourse, nor can any representational =
system that can mirror a reality external to such a system - what might =
be called the discursive idealism. Someone may able to drawn up the =
realism to idealism continuum, which seems to be as embedded in our =
discussions as the ontology continuum.
Gary Berg-Cross
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C52FFE.6D53E320
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 =
=3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD><TITLE>Idealism vs =
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>See my comments below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Azamat</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [email protected] =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary=20
Berg-Cross</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">azamat abdoullaev</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
; <A [email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>=
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 23, 2005 =
5:01=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism vs =
Materialism :=20
Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Azamat,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Your illustrations =
helped me=20
understand your approach to these very difficult topics of=20
primitive/fundamental ideas that ground an upper ontology. <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As in the quantum realm our =
naked=20
commonsense may not serve us well here but a consistent exploration of =
different, fallible hypotheses of these fundamentals concept should do =
it.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This might include, =
to use=20
Thagard=E2=80=99s (1992) related discovery methods, -<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: italic">data-driven</SPAN> =
(generalizations from=20
observation and from experiments with ontologies, abductive processes =
to=20
explain patterns, and <SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: italic">coherence-driven corrections to =
resolve=20
</SPAN>contradictions arising between hypotheses and observation.<SPAN =
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>We then attempt to restore =
consistency=20
adapting, removing <SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>or =
modifying=20
one or more assumptions which are judged contributes to the derivation =
of=20
contradiction<SPAN style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: =
italic">.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: =
italic"></SPAN></SPAN> </P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-bidi-font-style: italic">This method is old as the Greek =
world,=20
Aristotle drawn such elemental classes as substance, state, =
quality,=20
quantity, change, and relation from experience, seemingly from verbal=20
classification of Greek grammar. And they mold the matrix of human =
experience=20
and knowledge, all forms of thought. Alternatively, Kant proposed =
his table=20
of categories as pure concept of human understanding with some =
modifications,=20
lifting the class of relations over substances. As a result, no good =
formal and=20
general ontology can do without substances, states, changes, and=20
relations.</SPAN></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To put this back, for a =
moment, in=20
the philosophical contexts we started with in earlier messages, I =
<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>would add an idea from =
Clarence Lewis=20
=E2=80=98s "A Pragmatic Conception of the <I>a priori</I>," where he =
rejects Kantian=20
concepts of the <I>a priori</I> arguing that=E2=80=9D =
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"The thought which both=20
rationalism and empiricism have missed is that there are principles,=20
representing the initiative of mind, which impose upon experience no=20
limitations whatever, but that such conceptions are still subject to=20
<U>alternation</U> on pragmatic grounds when the expanding boundaries =
of=20
experience reveal their felicity as intellectual instruments." =
Underlining is=20
mine.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thus, paraphrasing some =
of Lewis=E2=80=99s=20
work and its interpretation by others, what is important about an =
hypothesis,=20
including ones on primitive ontological hypotheses, is that it is a =
"concept"=20
-- a purely logical meaning -- which we bring to bear on experience. =
The=20
concepts we formulate are in part determined by our immediate, =
pragmatic=20
interests and in part by the historical nature of individual =
experience as=20
researchers. In the sense Sowa has talked about fundamental scientific =
laws=20
they are outside our methods (<I>a priori</I> in a sense) because they =
order=20
experience in a way that can be investigated consistently across all =
of our=20
historical experience and our pragmatic interests at the time.=20
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It=E2=80=99s a knowledge =
hypothesis that=20
this type of ordering <SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: =
yes"> </SPAN>would be=20
true of our more fundamental categorical notions =E2=80=93 the ones we =
need for an=20
upper ontology. We formulate such upper level concepts based on our =
experience=20
and the pragamatics of the time, but our intuition is that we arrive =
at what=20
we will call a ontological primitive concept that transcends these =
pragmatic=20
starting points.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>It is not so =
important how the=20
concepts formulated in the human mind, by pure thought, intutition, =
experience=20
or experiment, or under divine inspiration. What is crucial, ontological =
concepts must represent the basic kinds of reality, they have to mean =
real=20
distinctions and differences. And so to be the master terms whereby any=20
cognitive agent can effectively reason about the world.</o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">BTW, this discussion has =
mostly=20
slipped beyond the Idealism vs. Materialism back to one more direct =
toward the=20
pragmatics of developing upper ontological topics. =
</SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I agree, but never mind. =
If you=20
like, just change the subject name.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Best.</SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p>1 </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><st1:City =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place=20
w:st=3D"on"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">Gary</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B> =
azamat=20
abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue =
3/22/2005=20
1:26 PM <BR><B>To:</B> Gary Berg-Cross <BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
[email protected]; =
[email protected]=20
<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the=20
Differentiating Element<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Let me clear up the matter in a =
more=20
illustrative way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Traditionally, reality is separated into =
two or three=20
disjoint divisions of the same rank and =
status:</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">1. as <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue">concrete =
individuals=20
</SPAN>(as contingent things) and <SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: blue">universals</SPAN> (as necessary=20
things);</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">2. as <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue">concrete=20
things</SPAN>, <SPAN style=3D"COLOR: blue">collections </SPAN>(or =
classes or=20
sets) of concrete things (concrete universals) and <SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: blue">abstract, conceptual classes, or universals =
<I>per=20
se</I></SPAN>. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Written in abbreviated forms, the above may =
be=20
presented as the CC (concrete and conceivable) schema or the CCC =
(concrete,=20
collective, and conceivable) perspective of reality; what is =
commonly=20
expressed in the natural languages as concrete names, collective =
names,=20
and abstract names. Then most existent general and upper=20
ontologies, like the OWL and SUO, can be assigned to the CC or CCC =
schemas,=20
closing the bottom with nothing or nonentity, the top with the =
concept of=20
individual thing or entity. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: =
12pt"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">Evidently, we need to consider the things =
in the=20
right order of their presentation, neither as an equal-order =
separation nor=20
in the inverse order, commencing from the concrete objects, =
properties, and=20
events, and specific relations to the abstract ontological classes =
of=20
substance, state, change, and relation. The order of things here =
makes all=20
the difference; after all, a young woman personality may be quite =
different=20
depending on the order of occurrences of her life experiences: =
becoming a=20
mother, a college graduation, and becoming a=20
wife.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">We have to =
lift up=20
Entity or Thing or Being as the topmost class of all classes =
complemented=20
with the concept of nothing (the null class as part of everything, =
which has=20
nothing to do with absurdity). The ultimate class of thing or=20
entity will then denote a single, unitary ontological category =
having=20
as its parts the entity classes and the relationship classes, as =
well as all=20
the infinite gamut of their instances and occurrences. We thus =
attached to=20
the scientific way of considering reality as the whole class of =
entity=20
consisting of entity classes and relationship classes, all together=20
constituting the nature and essence of the individual things in the =
real=20
world.<SPAN> </SPAN>So to have a universal ontology, you have =
just=20
follow the C/C/C descending model of the world, where sets and=20
individuals are only instantiations or representations of the=20
entity-universal, that is, they must be considered of much lower =
rank in the=20
ontological status.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Note when =
sets and=20
individuals are recognized as basic as universals, we are doomed to =
create=20
redundant entities and relationships, i.e., an imaginary world of=20
nonexistent things, while trying to construct a formal general =
ontology=20
language, like GOL, an otherwise interesting=20
project.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">So it =
looks that=20
your second reading is closer to the point.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Regarding =
you entity=20
classification (or rather object?), maybe it would of use at your =
top to=20
divide objects into two wide categories, material, =
spatial substances=20
and nonspatial, conceptual objects, and somehow include the=20
term 'representation' as well, before 'icon'.For more =
particulars,=20
visit my website: 'Standard Ontology for Global Intelligent=20
Cyberspace'.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'">Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">Azamat=20
Abdoullaev</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'">EIS =
Intelligent=20
Systems LTD</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.eis.com.cy">http://www.eis.com.cy</A></SPAN></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New =
Roman'"></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> =
<A=20
[email protected] =
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary=20
Berg-Cross</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">azamat abdoullaev</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 22, =
2005 3:59=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism vs =
Materialism=20
: Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Azamat,</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">>You are raising =
intriguing=20
questions regarding meaning and processible ontologies. I hope my =
short=20
contribution will make the picture clearer.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thanks for the kind =
words.=20
From what you wrote signs we may share some ideas from the =
semiotics realm=20
and connecting this to what you called =E2=80=9Contological =
linguistics=E2=80=9D, - a new=20
phrase for me, but if its subject matter is =E2=80=9Contological =
grammar, syntax,=20
and real valued semantics) this sounds like the issues that the=20
development of such things as OWL struggle although you might have =
to=20
spell out what you mean by and real valued semantics. </SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">AA>In the =
ontological=20
language, real meaning is fixed as the semantic values of signs,=20
determined by the entities and relationships in the real=20
world.</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Are you talking =
about relating=20
signs to the set-theoretic (logical) aspect of an =
ontology?<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>That is using signs in the ontology construction=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>as a formal logical system composed of its=20
objects-primitives, classes, individuals, and properties, logical =
syntax=20
(notation techniques, formation and transformation rules), and =
formal=20
semantics (model theory), such as the OWL is doing?</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Another way of =
speaking about=20
this is to <SPAN> </SPAN>imagine using =E2=80=9Csign =
meaning=E2=80=9D to develop a=20
=E2=80=9Cmeaningful=E2=80=9D primitives Entity, Thing etc. the =
kinds of objects with=20
fundamental definitions, axioms and those =E2=80=9Creal-world =
semantics=E2=80=9D you=20
mentioned.<SPAN> </SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN>This allows a =
common=20
interpretation by humans and systems of the ontological=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>theory and its truth conditions in the world of =
things,=20
entities, or beings.<SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
blue"> </SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
size=3D2>BTW, given=20
that we want to discuss signs and symbols our ontology will =
include=20
concepts like =E2=80=9Ccontentbearing objects: such as in the =
small taxonomic part=20
shown below (just to connect to the linguistic part of=20
ontology)</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><SPAN>=E2=80=A2<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"><FONT=20
size=3D2> =20
</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Entity</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Physical</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Object</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">ContentBearingObject</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Icon</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">SymbolicString</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">LinguisticExpression</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial">WrittenLinguisticExpression</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Text</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Sentence</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Phrase</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
</SPAN>Word</SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><SPAN> =
=20
=
</SPAN>Morpheme<SPAN> &nbs=
p;  =
; =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN><FONT=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Gary =
Berg-Cross</P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B> =
azamat=20
abdoullaev [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon =
3/21/2005=20
4:11 PM <BR><B>To:</B> Gary Berg-Cross <BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
[email protected] <BR><B>Subject:</B> =
Re:=20
Idealism vs Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating=20
Element<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Gary,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are raising intriguing =
questions=20
regarding meaning and processible ontologies. I hope my short=20
contribution will make the picture clearer. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To have correct understanding =
of knowledge,=20
meaning ought to be viewed as a meaning relation between =
signs=20
(symbols, words or ideas, thoughts) and things in the real=20
world. Any relation by nature is two-sided or =
bi-directional (from=20
signs to things as well as form things to signs). The =
ontological=20
perspective comes out here as most fundamental; for it is =
mapping the=20
real structures to the sign structures (which include conceptual =
structures). This is the subject matter of ontological =
linguistics=20
(ontological grammar, syntax, and real valued semantics), which=20
shouldn't be mixed with its complement, linguistic ontology. In =
the=20
ontological language, real meaning is fixed as the semantic =
values of=20
signs, determined by the entities and relationships in the =
real=20
world. Once the sign structures with their associations in =
a=20
certain domain knowledge are sorted out as truly conforming to =
the=20
ontological structures, you can enjoy a =
machine-processible=20
ontology.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The second issue is inherently =
connected=20
with the successful resolution of the first one. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Materialism-Idealism =
distinction is the=20
result of an innate tendency of the human mind to all sorts of =
dichotomy=20
and duality. This opposite division is a bad heritage of =
classic=20
metaphysics, born by the confused polarity of all things as =
abstract,=20
ideal realities (froms, ideas) and material, =
physical realities.=20
The practice of modern science is inclined to deny as the only =
reality=20
either ideas or matter, where one exists as subordinate to =
another.=20
The task of general formal ontology is to view the =
abstract=20
entities and the concrete things as two parts of one real world, =
as two=20
distinct domains of reality, the universe of matter and the =
universe of mind, somehow interrelated to each other. And =
the=20
concepts of mind and matter should be synthesized not within =
materialism=20
or idealism but rather within a general ontological theory =
encompassing=20
both parts as distinct levels within an all-comprehensive =
hierarchy=20
of things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>After all, to comprehend the =
general rules,=20
principles, and mechanisms of such relationships=20
(ideality-actuality) is =
the challenging undertaking for=20
all who signed up for ontology classes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Azamat Abdoullaev</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>EIS Intelligent Systems =
LTD</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.eis.com.cy">http://www.eis.com.cy</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt =
arial"><B>From:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Gary Berg-Cross</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Chris Lofting</A> =
; <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">standard-upper-=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
[email protected]=20
=
href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">owner-sta=
[email protected]</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 21, =
2005 4:35=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Idealism =
vs=20
Materialism : Idealism and the Differentiating Element</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This =
discussion, along=20
with Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" =
=3D=3D>>=20
knowledge ?,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2> has=20
wandered over considerable ground but a =
<SPAN> </SPAN>question=20
was raised along the way about =E2=80=9Chow then we should =
model=20
meaning?.=E2=80=9D</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>One issue was=20
can "knowledge" ("reality" yes, but not "knowledge") exist=20
independently of the brain?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>A =
simple counter=20
question occurred to me, =E2=80=9Cif such knowledge can[t be =
defined how why=20
are trying to build processable ontologies ?<SPAN> =
</SPAN>Isn=E2=80=99t=20
that a endeavor to capture meaning outside of the=20
brain?</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>John Sowa=20
covered this in passing, noting that our computer applications =
include=20
=E2=80=9Cknowledge=E2=80=9D </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>JS> First,=20
knowledge is certainly codifiable in a way that<BR>solves a =
great many=20
problems. Every program ever written<BR>does that, and =
there are=20
an enormous number of very<BR>successful ones. But each =
of those=20
programs solves a<BR>particular special case. The =
problem we=20
face is to<BR>relate those special cases by general=20
principles.<BR>JS>And that is where the difficulties=20
lie.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Peirce=E2=80=99s distinction between REAL and TRUE =
may be helpful to=20
some of us in<SPAN> </SPAN>ontological community =
discussion with=20
an aim to building up usable knowledge .<SPAN> =20
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Perice <SPAN> </SPAN>"The real, then, is that =
which,=20
sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally =
result in,=20
and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>and you. Thus, the very origin of the =
conception of=20
reality shows that this conception essentially involves the =
notion of=20
a community, without definite limits, and capable of a =
definite=20
increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311). </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>To elaborate further this is now he addressed the =
distinction=20
between opinions on the true, and the real =
<SPAN> </SPAN>in "How=20
to Make Our Ideas Clear ": </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>"The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed =
to by all=20
who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object=20
represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I =
would=20
explain reality" (CP 5.407). =E2=80=A6. =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Peirce continues later with </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style=3D"MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>"reality is independent, not necessarily of thought =
in general,=20
but only of what you or I or any finite number of men may =
think about=20
it," =E2=80=A6.(that), "though the object of the final opinion =
depends on what=20
that opinion is, yet what that opinion is does <U>not</U> =
depend on=20
what you or I or any man thinks" (CP 5.408). underlining is =
mine for=20
emphasis</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>Which brings me,=20
at least, <SPAN> </SPAN>back to John=E2=80=99s opinion =
that he accuracy=20
of any scientific hypothesis</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>JS> does not=20
depend<BR>> on who or what discovered it =
or on=20
any methods of thinking,<BR>> any =
techniques of=20
problem solving, or any apparatus =
that<BR>JS> he,=20
she, or it might have used to arrive at the =
hypothesis.<BR><BR>I can=20
understand this in light of Peirce=E2=80=99 efforts to define =
clear thinking,=20
which we need in Ontology =
building.<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>To=20
conclude with yet another Peircian quote.<SPAN> =
</SPAN>Here=E2=80=99s=20
one he used on the path to a 3<SUP>rd</SUP> way between the =
realists=20
and idealist.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>The philosophical problem is to resolve two =
contradictory=20
claims about the basis of reality: </FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<OL style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=3D1>
<LI class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: =
black"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>the principal=20
thesis of realism - there is a reality that exists =
independently of=20
our representations of it or</FONT></FONT></SPAN>=20
<LI class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: =
black"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN> </SPAN>Idealism claim that what we =
perceive as=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>real dependent is upon our (usually =
expressed as=20
mental) representations of =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=9D. =
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></LI></OL>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black">As =
</SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt">James Liszka<SPAN style=3D"COLOR: =
black">=20
observed the clash of the two theses is nicely expressed in =
Peirce's=20
"Consequences of the Four Incapacities=20
":</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN> </SPAN>"...there is no thing which is =
in-itself in=20
the sense of not being relative to the mind, though things =
which are=20
relative to the mind doubtless are, apart from the relation" =
(5.311).=20
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>Liszkae called this 3<SUP>rd</SUP> way a =
<I>discursive=20
realism</I> to distinguish it from the later effort of=20
<SPAN> </SPAN>Rorty or Foucault, in which there is =
neither a=20
privileged discourse, nor can any representational system that =
can=20
mirror a reality external to such a system =
<SPAN> </SPAN>- what=20
might be called the discursive idealism.<SPAN> =
</SPAN>Someone=20
may able to drawn up the realism to idealism continuum, which =
seems to=20
be as embedded in our discussions as the ontology=20
continuum.</FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gary =
Berg-Cross</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C52FFE.6D53E320--