Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
To: "Alexander Povolotsky" <pevnev@juno.com>
Cc: <abdoul@CYTANET.COM.CY>; <gary.berg-cross@EM-I.COM>;
<standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 09:04
Subject: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
...
> The main point I was trying to make is that I don't
> believe that the distinction between objective and
> subjective is clear or useful for explaining much,
> if anything.
>
> Mathematics is extremely important for science,
> engineering, computer systems, philosophy, psychology,
> etc. But it's not necessary to add the word "objective"
> to justify using math.
...
John, objectively the penny is circular. Subjectively it appears elliptical
(say). Reconciling or explaining the difference between those judgments
remains a difficulty for philosophy, and is even a matter of urgency in AI.
What needs to be explained is the difference between those statements; there
is a difference between appearance and reality, unless I am deceived.
Jay