Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
John,
Some comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@CYTANET.COM.CY>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology
from philosophical ontology
> Azamat,
>
> I have an extremely high respect for Descartes's achievements in
> mathematics. Among them, the invention of Cartesian coordinates
> and analytic geometry revolutionized physics.
>
> Newton, by the way, did the calculations and proved his theorems by
> using Cartesian coordinates.
But in his famous book, he translated
> everything to Euclidean-style proofs. He did so because many people
> at that time did not trust analytic geometry, but they did trust a
> demonstration in Euclidean form.
The motivation is not so significant here. What matters is the whole new
idea of subjecting metaphysical systems to axiomatization, the rigorous and
systematic analysis of a system from precise definitions, axioms and rules,
what Spinoza essayed in his philosophy. Some of the ideas of calculus,
infinitesimals, limits, integral calculus, derivatives, had been known in
the ancient and medivial times to mathematicians of Egypt, Greece, China,
India, and Persia. Pulling together all the existent concepts, Leibniz and
Newton managed to build a theory of calculus in a most rigorous and
systematic way, following both Descartes methodology and Cartesian geometry.
For example, my native, Omar Khayyam (1050-1123), preceded Descrates in
relating geometry with algebra, finding geometric solutions for all
third-degree equations with positive roots. [''No attention should be paid
to the fact that algebra and geometry are different in appearance. Algebras
are geometric facts which are proved'']. But, he was not as systematic as
Descartes.
>
> > It is a blasphemy to disrespect so badly the spiritual fathers,
> > particularly, the Father of Modern Philosophy and Mathematics.
>
> First of all, there is an infinite distance between the mind of God
> and the mind of a mortal. It is blasphemy to blur that distinction
> by applying the word 'blasphemy' to any mortal, no matter how great.
Here is a more subtle sense. For 'blasphemy' means 'disrespect not only for
God but also something sacred'', something which is not restricted to the
divine things, what is worthy of respect or dedication .
>
> Second, despite Descartes's greatness in mathematics, he made
> several horrible blunders in his philosophy, which have plagued
> the so-called "modern" philosophy up to the 20th century. Peirce
> and Whitehead saw through those blunders, but many others did not.
>
> 1. Descartes thought that he could achieve absolute certainty on
> empirical matters.
Doubt that he was so simple. I'd be delighted to see any reference.
That assumption, by itself, is blasphemy.
> Leibniz made the point that certainty for humans is possible in
> mathematics. But for any empirical subject, only an infinite
> mind could attain absolute certainty.
>
> 2. He pretended to doubt matters that were impossible for him to
> doubt. Perhaps my word 'fraud' is too strong, but it is, in
> any case, a kind of self deception whose effects are even
> worse than a deliberate deception. If Descartes were merely
> fraudulent, he would have been found out very quickly, and
> people would have seen through the flaws in his philosophy.
> Unfortunately, many people took his ideas seriously.
>
> 3. His sharp distinction between mind and body created the
> so-called mind-body problem. That problem did not exist
> for Aristotle, who had a hierarchy of psyches, each of
> which depended on the earlier ones: the vegetative psyche
> of plants; the sensitive psyche of sedentary animals, such
> as barnacles and clams; the psyche of animals with locomation,
> such as worms; the psyche of animals with imagery; and the
> human psyche of animals having logos (zoon logon echein).
With all my infinite respect to Aristotle, he missed two core things of
fundamental ontology, relationships and interactive causality. The latter
idea was formulated by Descartes as psychological interactionism, when
mental processes (feeling, thinking, willing of something) produce physical
actions as much as physical changes give rise to mental events. That mind
and body, being of different natures and kinds, act on each other by agency
of some specialized brain structure, is hardly a blunder.
>
> Those three blunders completely destroyed Descartes's philosophy.
>
> And by the way, Thomas Aquinas, a highly admired theologian,
> adopted Aristotle's hierarchy. Although Aquinas used the Latin
> 'anima' for Aristotle's 'psyche', he did not suffer from the
> delusion of a mind detached from the body. In fact, he even used
> the Aristotelian hierarchy as an argument for the Christian dogma
> of the resurrection of the dead at the Last Judgment. His reason
> was that the human soul depends for its full faculties on the
> hierarchy of all the more primitive souls of plants and animals.
> And if the rational soul is detached from the rest, it has only
> a shadowy existence that is not as perfect as it would be when
> united with the body.
>
> > ... advanced rationalism with its built-in conception of innate
> > knowledge, some knowledge gain by sense experience, but most
> > fundamental truths and principles by reason and deduction (in
> > ontology, logics, mathematics, ethics).
>
> Rationalism and innate ideas were thoroughly developed by Plato
> and his followers. One of Aristotle's most important achievements
> was to qualify and correct those errors. Descartes's version was
> a terrible step backwards.
>
> > ... most fundamental truths and principles by reason and deduction
> > (in ontology, logics, mathematics, ethics).
> >
> > mathematical philosophy with its inbuilt idea of mathematicism
> > (exploiting formal structure and rigorous methods in philosophical
> > systems).
>
> As I said, I have a very high regard for Descartes's mathematics.
> But the good parts of those ideas you mentioned were introduced by
> Plato and Aristotle. The formalization of mathematics from Euclid
> to Archimedes was outstanding (and there were quite a few important
> achievements by the Indian and Arabic mathematicians). The
> Scholastics of the 12th to the 14th century did a very good job
> of applying those ideas to philosophy while *avoiding* the three
> major blunders by Descartes.
>
> > It was Descartes who proposed to organize ontological (philosophical)
> > knowledge in the form of definitions, axioms, rules and theorems,
> > following Euclid's axiomatization of geometry and Aristotle's Topics.
>
> I suggest that you look at the Scholastic writings.
>
> > ''I think, therefore I am'', try to test it in your personal
> > experience, imagining that you suddenly lost your power to cogitate
> > and cerebrate, what a poor existence and wretched life it might be!
>
> Indeed, the losses caused by Alzheimer's disease and other forms
> of dementia are devastating. But Descartes's slogan is useless.
> People who have lost a great deal of their faculties are still
> aware of the existence of themselves and their surroundings,
> even when they remember very little of their past.
''To be aware'' and ''to be consious'' is quite different things. You are
aware of your surroundings (that which exists without you), but you are
consious of your thought (the workings of your own mind, thus chiefly
applying to the intellect). The rationalist cry means no more but that
thinking is your real essence, not the treacherous senses. And that you
belong to a specific class of thinking entity, along with other possible
types of minds (animal intelligence, machine intelligences, superhuman
minds, or an absolute, infinite and eternal, mind). For any intelligent
species, genuine existence suggests thinking and knowing and willing, the
characteristic acts of the thinking entity. The causal mechanisms of
psycho-physical interaction, how the mind (reason and intellect) relates to
the body (the brain,the seat of mind) and the extraneous world, is the
matter to be studied.
The whole point of knowledge technologies and semantic applications as
Intelligent Web, Semantic machines, AI systems, to somehow isolate and
codify the mental mechanisms, which essence is mechanical reasoning and
meaning processing, with ensuing embodiment in computing machines. This
closely resonates with the Cartesian ontology of mind, where the mind
(mental things as sensations, images, ideas, thoughts, concepts, volitions,
desires, etc.) affects the body (physical changes) as the body affects the
mind.
Azamat
PS: Think of a computer experiment where the bodies in the virtual world of
simulation, while the minds are out the simulation.
>
> John
>
>