Re: I am.

This shows that a machine cannot do reasoning for a person.To use RDF is is to
be committed to pragmatic utility, but there is no utility to the statement I
AM, however asserted.To make anything of it (even to smile, laugh or find a
construct neat as many above are) we have to do the work.We also have to do the
work in relation to the deeper issue that Descartes' Cogito touches upon.Or,
even and ultimately not unrelatedly, the I AM found at Exodus 3.14.The article
about YAWEH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahwehand about the tetragrammaton
found in Wikipedia  
Tetragrammaton The tetragrammaton (; from Greek , meaning "[consisting of]
four letters") is the four Hebrew letters ‎, commonly transliterated into Latin
letters as YHWH. en.wikipedia.org  
over various insights. One is that possibly the term is a verb meaning"to be",
"to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass".Or possibly brings about,
or create.There is also the issue that the word can be written but not
pronounced, so a substitute or a form of circumlocution is found.Really people
have been doing in their rich linguistic practices a great deal that is now
being codified with computers, logic, categorisation, abbreviation, indirection
and I'm sure other things I cannot think of.Coming back to my original point,
that there is a connection (aside from the obvious ones) between Descartes'
Cogito and Yahweh, we find that one of the origins of the later terms is given
as:'el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning theheavenly army
 accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel.'which I
take, for the sake of what I am saying here, to be a reference to the way groups
of people form strong allegiances with each other, that group being "the world"
to which every "I" belongs.An "I am" had no meaning. But what then, to push my
point about it being us who must do the work, whatever the utility of a system
for automatic categorisation, of Descartes' argument.Descartes' argument is not
trivial, but it is undone precisely by following his own radical skepticism to
its limits, and that entails understanding for ourselves what meaning means
since we believe that words have meaning, rather than being gibberish.We
understand it for ourselves exactly on the point that otherwise we are left in a
sort of meaningless autistic void without reference to others -- the link with
the image above of "earthly armies" or, as I would prefer, simply other people.
Very Best,
Adam  





On Thu, May 18, 2017 10:11 PM, Martin McEvoy martin@weborganics.co.uk  wrote:
The "I Am" is a thought, a notion, the first idea of yourself​,  the only thing
you think you can actually certain of is that "I am" ...

On 17 May 2017 10:46 pm, "Sarven Capadisli" <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
Philosophers and Semantic Web junkies gather around.

Use the the RDF language to represent the following statement:

"I am."

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i