SUO: Re: Physical and Abstract
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Phil,
Okay. I'm sure by now that you can probably anticipate
the standard sermon on how sign/object is a distinction
of relational roles rather them essential qualities, so
I will leave you on your own recognizance.
TGIF,
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Philip Jackson wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> You wrote:
> >
> > Can you tell me more about what you mean by "primitives" in this context?
> >
> > Philip Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > Yes, I agree. I find it easier to think of "sign" vs. "object" as
> > > primitives, than to think of physical vs abstract as primitives.
>
> I was using "primitives" in reference to what John Sowa wrote below:
>
> > > > But I think that it is possible to adopt the P vs. A
> > > > distinction as one step leading up to semiotics.
>
> and I was saying that to me it seems easier to adopt the "sign" vs. "object"
> distinction as a step leading to the P vs. A distinction.
>
> However, I also agree with what John wrote in a later message:
>
> "There is always a problem with primitives:
> You can't define them in terms of anything else
> in the theory because they are primitives.
> Therefore, the basic starting distinctions in any
> theory cannot be defined formally. However, it is
> possible to give examples or explications that
> tell someone who is applying the theory how to
> recognize instances of those distinctions."
>
> Phil
>
> >
> > > The notion of abstraction then becomes that of a description of
> > an object,
> > > where the "level of abstraction" corresponds to details that
> > are abstracted
> > > out of the description. The descriptionitself is embodied by a
> > sign (aka
> > > signal, sentence, etc.), which is itself a physical object. All of this
> > > is copacetic with Peirce's definitions.
> > >
> > > Of course, we can omit the speed of light. What's important is just
> > > the existence of a signal, not the speed or method by which it is
> > > transmitted, nor how the signal itself is embodied.
> > >
> > > Then we have:
> > >
> > > 2. If you are given a physical replica of an abstraction at one
> > place and
> > > time, can you transmit a signal representing the abstraction
> > to another
> > > place and time where another physical replica, sufficiently
> > similar to
> > > the original by whatever criteria you choose, can be reconstructed?
> > >
> > > One problem with this criterion is that it ties understanding
> > an abstraction to
> > > being able to make replicas of things. However, depending on
> > one's technology,
> > > one may not be able to reproduce some things that one can
> > describe. In that case,
> > > the chief purpose of an abstraction is to allow people to
> > recognize other instances
> > > of the abstraction, and communicate about instances of
> > abstractions, so that people
> > > can better interact with the already existing instances of abstractions.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:22 AM
> > > > To: Philip Jackson
> > > > Cc: SUO; cg@cs.uah.edu; Nicola Guarino
> > > > Subject: Re: Physical and Abstract
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > I agree that your criterion is more specific:
> > > >
> > > > > 2. If you are given a physical replica of an abstraction
> > > > > at one place and time, can you transmit a signal representing
> > > > > the abstraction at the speed of light to another place and
> > > > > time where another physical replica, sufficiently similar
> > > > > to the original by whatever criteria you choose, can be
> > > > > reconstructed?
> > > >
> > > > However, it already uses the word "signal", which already
> > > > presupposes all the basic issues.
> > > >
> > > > I completely agree with the following statement:
> > > >
> > > > > This makes clear that the concept of abstraction is inherently
> > > > > related to semiotics and theory of representations, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that any proposed upper ontology that does not
> > > > take semiotics into account at the uppermost levels is
> > > > doomed to failure -- and that includes Cyc, Sumo, and Dolce.
> > > >
> > > > But I think that it is possible to adopt the P vs. A
> > > > distinction as one step leading up to semiotics.
> > > > You need it, for example, in the type/token distinction.
> > > >
> > > > I like Negroponte's "atoms vs. bits" slogan. However,
> > > > the notion of "bit" already presupposes information
> > > > theory (at least at Shannon's level, which is a very
> > > > watered down notion of one important, but tiny aspect
> > > > of semiotics).
> > > >
> > > > John
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o