Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Rob,
> Descartes proof was a proof of existence. But existence is a very
> problematic concept. For instance, Descartes is now dead, does he not
> then still exist? Clearly he doesn't exist in the way he once did, he
> doesn't think any more. But do his thoughts not exist? We are thinking
> about him, does that mean he exists?
> Even basing existence in thought (or doubt) it is difficult to say
> unequivocally that Descartes either exists or does not exist.
Doesn't this difficulty disappear if you define "exists" in a
sufficiently precise or general way, and hence, if you define the
terms you use in your statements?
existing_living_person < existing ;
existing_in_thought < existing ;
Descartes_the_living_entity < Descartes existing_living_person ;
Descartes_as_intellectual_symbol < Descartes existing_in_thought ;
Philippe