Re: Fwd: SUO Quo Vadis
Justed wanted to make sure that implications of such *neutrality* are
clearly understood.
-- "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
Alex,
When I said *neutral*, I meant *neutral*. You can
add any assumptions whatever.
> Do you allow that "something" to be "Creator"
> or "Absolute Spirit" or "me and nobody but me" ?
None of those assumptions are prohibited. If you want
to adopt any of them, be my guest.
> Irrelevant ? - I am not really sure about that ...
But I am.
> The words "goal", "purpose", and "intention" could be used
> for describing "intelligent design" and "creationism" -
> do you (John) allow such usage within your UF ?
When I said *neutral*, I meant *neutral*. You can
add any assumptions whatever. I don't require them,
and I don't prohibit them.
> do you want your UF ontology to be able to describe in
> non-critical fashion such human activity as religion ?
When I said *neutral*, I meant *neutral*. You can
add any assumptions whatever.
How many times do I have to repeat that?
John
___________________________________________________________________
Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month!
Unlimited Internet Access with 250MB of Email Storage.
Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!