SUO: RE: Natural language
John,
A few minor points:
JS>But what I was objecting to is that you seem to think that a 4D ontology
is somehow an improvement over what people use in ordinary language.
What I actually originally wrote was:
CP>It seems to me that all the good explanations, whether 3D or 4D lead to
revisions of so-called ordinary ways of speaking.
So no bias to 4D there.
JS> And I really object to the word "qualm" because it suggests that there
is something to be corrected in the way people use notions of identity.
What I actually said was that the users of ordinary language had qualms
about how they were using identity - a different point - again vide
transubstantiation (it is easier to analyse things from a distance). I do
not see how, in this case, you can object to the need for a resolution -
even it merely explains the status quo.
Vis a vis your comments on DOLCE and identity - I side with DOLCE on the
importance of identity, though maybe not the details - I agree with you
about the lack of ecomony in having a multitude of individuals - but these
are other, different, issues.
BTW DOLCE is a an example of a 3D revision - illustrating my original point
that the need for a revision is driven by 'qualms' and affects both 3D and
4D positions - contrary to Pierluigi's comment (often made by people) that
somehow 3D was a clear reflection of current ordinary practice. As an aside,
I understand that ordinary language event talk is often seen as naturally
interpreted as 4D - before any attempts at revision. So the court of
ordinary language is not really coming down unequivocally on either side.
Anyway, I hope my original point is now a little clearer.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: sowa@bestweb.net [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent: 27 September 2003 15:16
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; Pierluigi Miraglia; cg@cs.uah.edu;
Nicola Guarino
Subject: Re: Natural language
Chris,
Interesting point:
CP> My point is just that language evolves. This evolution
> has historically starts with qualms which are then resolved.
> Surely you cannot object to this! And historically the
> looseness (technical not prejorative) of use of terms
> dealing with identity has been an area where there has
> been evolution in the past.
But what I was objecting to is that you seem to think
that a 4D ontology is somehow an improvement over what
people use in ordinary language. I certainly agree that
it is different, and I also agree for some purposes, it
is more useful than a 3D ontology. But I would certainly
not recommend a 4D ontology as a replacement for a 3D
ontology -- it is just one more ontology to throw into
the pot (or lattice or any other modularization you prefer).
And I really object to the word "qualm" because it
suggests that there is something to be corrected in the
way people use notions of identity. I certainly agree
that identity is a very context-dependent notion,
and it is very dangerous to assume any fixed notion
of identity as the foundation for ontology.
That is one of my primary objections to DOLCE: They
put far too much emphasis on identity as something that
is supposed to be fundamental to ontology. The DOLCE
solution is to relate identity to the concept type --
but that just creates even more confusion. They
end up with multiplicities of individuals in every
space-time region depending on the whim of anybody who
happens to classify what they see.
Identity is a very useful notion, but it is fundamentally
context dependent. It is something to be explicated,
not a concept that you can use to explicate anything else.
John