Re: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology or the name of the rose

Asankhaya, Andrian, and others,

We can got out of the mystery and secrets of languages, human or artificial, 
only having an ontology-based semantic account of sings and symbols.
To see why it is so easy to manipulate the languages and how to avoid this 
while communicating [transmitting thoughts, feelings and information about 
the environment, our mental experiences, and pragmatic intentions], good to 
keep in mind at least three basic ontological assumption about sings. 
Namely:

I. There are things that are merely things, all acting as the ultimate 
source of meanings, like studied in Real Ontology, not mixing with 
fictitious ontologies;
II. There are things that are also signs of other things, like as causally 
related natural signs of the physical world and mental signs of the mind;
III. There are things that are always signs, as words and other cultural 
symbols.

In other words, there are things which MAY have meanings (the things of the 
external world, as all sorts of indications, evidences, symptoms, and 
physical signals); there are signs that ALWAYS have senses and meanings (the 
entities of the mind); and there are signs that HAVE to get their meanings 
(as cultural symbols and linguistic entities).

Any language is a collection of arbitrary sings, conventional and 
intentional symbols (as words), and thus signifies world things via the 
agency of mental signs (thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, images).

While the senses are imposed by our subjective minds and personal 
perspectives, the substantial meaning of languages comes from the outside 
world [the largest reference class and environment], enforcing unambiguous 
meanings on our always ambiguous languages, and so enabling the human beings 
(or semantic machines) to communicate and understand the Existence.

Developing a consistent theory of reality, revealing its composition and 
structure [its main consituents, properties, changes, and relationships], we 
are heading for a universal language of things, univocally matching our 
personal worlds with the real universe.

Good wishes,

Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.encyclopedic-intelligence.com




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Walker" <adrianw@snet.net>
To: "Asankhaya Sharma" <asankhaya@yahoo.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>; <phismith@buffalo.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:46 AM
Subject: RE: [semanticweb] how to explain to humans the term ontology or the 
name of the rose


>
> Hi All --
>
> At 11:39 AM 1/12/2006 -0800,  Asankhaya Sharma wrote:
>>it's impossible to express the thoughts unless we share the common 
>>language.
>
> The playwright Tom Stoppard has an entertaining take on this.  He has 
> short play, based loosely on Wittgenstein and "language as use".  During 
> the play, the audience learns an entirely new semantics of English by 
> observing the action on stage.
>
> That may not sound like comedy, until you hear that, in the new semantics, 
> you can insult someone by calling them "bicycle!".  A mortal insult is 
> "tricycle!".
>
> While this aspect of language may sound a bit trivial, it could also have 
> rather deep implications for writing and using ontologies.  The US 
> National Center for Ontological Research is part rooted in the philosophy 
> department at SUNYAB -- perhaps Professor Barry Smith would care to 
> comment?
>
>                                        -- Adrian
>
>
>
> INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC (R)
> Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> Shared, community use is free
>
> Adrian Walker
> Reengineering
> PO Box 1412
> Bristol
> CT 06011-1412 USA
>
> Phone: USA 860 583 9677
> Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
> Fax:    USA  860 314 1029
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 10:44:48 UTC