W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:44:45 -0700
Message-ID: <17CF64AC9A8A474891DBC50A2ABB070B@rhm8200>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>, "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net>
Re: Why do you want to do that?See below.

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pat Hayes 
  To: Richard H. McCullough 
  Cc: Semantic Web at W3C ; KR-language ; Adam Pease 
  Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?


  At 9:53 AM -0700 8/11/08, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
    Let me clarify several things.

    1. mKR can handle an X which is both an Individual & a Class
    in the same context.

    2. Since I consider (1) to be wrong, epistemologically,


  You have said this repeatedly, but you have never given any reason for it or tried to persuade anyone else of it. Since there have been several examples already suggested which seem to contradict it quite clearly, I would be far more interested in hearing arguments, than simply a repetition of your opinion. This is actually an ontological issue rather than an epistemological one, so epistemology is somewhat irrelevant.

  By the way, you have still not explained what you mean by 'individual'. You restricted yourself to physical individuals, which is clearly far too restrictive and in any case begs the question at issue. Do you have a more general account of what you mean?

  Dick responds:
  The theory applies equally to physical individuals and abstract individuals.
  But it's harder to define an abstract individual; I don't have a good definition on the tip of my tongue.
  I'm still going to avoid that question for now, because I don't want to invest the time to come up with a
  good definition.

  As for the clearer case of physical individuals, you are not really "hearing" my arguments,
  because you have already accepted a different conclusion.  I forget the name of that particular logical fallacy.
  But the bottom line is: you have assumed your conclusion is true without proof, and asserted that my conclusion is
  false because your conclusion is true.

  I'll give you my "physical individual" argument again.
  An Individual is an "external" thing directly perceived by a human.
  A Class is an "internal" thing -- an abstract mental group of Individuals.
  A group of Individuals is mutually exclusive from an Individual.

  Even if you allow a group to have only 1 member, 
  the most you can say is that the group is equivalent to the member
  in some sense.  You can't say that the member is a group, or that
  the group is a member.

  Dick


  Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  IHMC               (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
  40 South Alcaniz St.       (850)202 4416   office
  Pensacola                 (850)202 4440   fax
  FL 32502                     (850)291 0667    cell
  http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
  http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 02:47:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT