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: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:07:35 -0700
Message-ID: <639B6B9EE6894A3B9E28FD0FF84473E1@rhm8200>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Denny Vrande„iÁ <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>
Re: Why do you want to do that?Hi Pat
Getting down to fundamentals, here.
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;

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pat Hayes 
  To: Richard H. McCullough 
  Cc: Denny Vrande„iÁ ; Semantic Web at W3C ; KR-language 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?

  At 7:09 AM -0700 8/12/08, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
    Hi Denny
    Thanks for your input.
    See below for my response.


    2. My ultimate source of definitions is the "unit" and "concept" of
    Ayn Rand (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
    I guess I should "shut up" and refer you to Ayn Rand.
    She has a knack for clear explanations; I do not.
    I do have a knack for integrating her abstract ideas into
    a practical tool -- the mKR language.

  Maybe that is the basic point. Your are a disciple of Rand, and I'm not. In fact, I think that her philosophy was simplistic and ill-thought-out, her personality was borderline psychotic, and her politics deeply immoral. So we should simply agree to disagree, and stop arguing.

  ***** I'm ready to do that.

  However, more generally, you must not make the mistake of assuming that Rand was in any objective sense correct. Her philosophy is one, very idiosyncratic, position, not the final truth. In fact, very few professional philosophers take her ideas seriously. So to criticize non-Randian logics on the grounds that they disagree with Rand's positions (I won't say 'conclusions' because they are little more than opinions, unsupported by detailed argument) isn't appropriate or correct.

  ***** You mean that you think the whole book that Ayn Rand wrote contains no detailed arguments?
  ***** If so, that's another place we disagree.

    Rand's unit/concept and OWL's individual/class are, I hope,
    attempts to characterize the same process of human concept formation.

  I can't speak for Rand, but that's not true of OWL, which does not set out to be a theory of human psychology.
  ***** Neither does Rand.  What she presents is a theory of human epistemology.

    I have great confidence that Ayn Rand "got it right" when she said
    that units and classes are mutually exclusive (in the same context).
    I think that OWL "got it wrong" when it said they are not.

  We know you THINK that. But you havn't given us any ARGUMENT for this opinion of yours. I don't think that: and I can DEMONSTRATE that my opinion is at least internally consistent. What grounds can you give me to change my opinion, other than repeating that you think its wrong?

  ***** I've given you lots of arguments, but you just say they're opinions, and ignore them.
  ***** You have yet to "prove" your "opinions" to me.  I have repeatedly asked for your references.


  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
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 19:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:08 UTC