| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Horn, Graham
Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2002 6:19
To: 'John F. Sowa'; kif@philebus.tamu.edu
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: "Abstract" and "dimensionality" - Re: SUMO axiomatizationJohn et al,
. I have had considerable problems with trying to tie down the nature of pure structure, theory, etc. I tried to apply the term "concept" to this, but was ruled out of order on the basis that a concept had to have been conceived by someone, and by implication, at a given point in time. The latest draft of ISO/IEC 111793 accordingly defines "Concept" as· "a unit of thought constituted through abstraction based on characteristics common to a set of objects".
. I fear the same attitude may be taken to "Abstract", since someone had to perform the (mental) task of "drawing away" the pattern or structure from the original observation or thought.
. Personally, I feel there is something in the nature of pure structure or pattern that can exist independently of whether it exists in physical reality, and also independently of whether any intelligent being has conceived of or observed it.
Since all of our maps/categories of reality seem to be based on self-referencing so a 'pure' structure or pattern is only reducable to the format we use at the mindless level. As such you can use the term 'Construct' since our self-referencing processes construct reality out of the 'mindless' , concrete level of sensory processing where intergration of data works to create a 'whole' that we then use self-reference to get the 'details' - this latter process reflects spectrum aquisition as we go for the parts-list.
The realm of self-reference is VERY precise but also very archetypal, ideal forms etc and as such has a mechanistic perspective but then a parts list IS what is reflected in ontology.
The 'fun' comes when the set of possible categories is introduced into reality - thus we link the static with the dynamic and from that elicit 'meanings' that are grounded to a context and so the sameness of the parts list serves to identify differences.
Chris.
--------------
Chris Lofting
Websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
List owner:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus