RE: SUO: The Story So Far
>Chris,
>
>As I said in my earlier notes, I believe that there are multiple
>points involved in this discussion. And it is misleading to
>lump them all under the terms "endurantist" or "perdurantist":
>
> 1. 3D or 4D coordinate systems.
>
> 2. Processes or objects as the fundamental entities.
>
> 3. Causality or time as the fundamental foundation.
>
> 4. Interpretation of identity and identity conditions.
I agree; finding distinctions is almost always a valuable effort ...
>The most "weird" position that Nicola seems to promote is
>his interpretation of identity. That is separable from the
>other points.
>
><...>
>
>>You say:
>>The view that the statue and the clay are the "same thing"
>>can be safely held in either a 3-D or a 4-D poin of view.
>>I really don't know how to classify Nicola's position,
>>since it seems to be inconsistent with the way ordinary
>>human beings talk, with the way that scientists talk, and
>>with the way that most philosophers talk.
>
> >This seems to me false. On the face of it our language is 'Endurantist'.
>
> >I do not say 'my life went to the cinema last night' - or 'I am
>long (in the
>>same sense as 'I have had a long life'). We certainly do not say 'a temporal
>
>>stage of me went to the cinema last night'.
>
>Of course not. We use ordinary English terms, which can be
>formally defined in many different ways. And the simplest way
>I can see to define them makes them perfectly consistent with
>Whitehead's process philosophy.
Obviously you can conceptualize anything either in 3-d or 4-d.
The point is that not everyone is sure that 4-d is the simplest
way to define the intended meaning of many ordinary domains.
I think that the modular solution to SUO is the best, at least in the
form of a main module and some related alternatives (even less preferable,
or with recommendations about what domains could benefit from those
alternatives).
Moreover, I am a little surprised to hear that SUO should be
primarily concerned with an ontology of nuclear physics. Beyond the
incompatibility between mundane and
scientific description of the world and the possible issue of
educating T.C.Mits,
I understood that SUO is largely devoted to an ontology of common sense
intended -for example - as 'everyday sharable invariant intuitions of
an average western culture human in the beginning of the 21st
century' (that, BTW, include some scientifically valid beliefs ..).
Also: are you sure you want to defend the interest of both T.C.Mits
and Vulcanian Mr.Spock in the same ontology?
> >As you can see, I think, as a matter of fact, you are incorrect in the way
>
>>you characterize 'Nicola's' position.
>
>The main thing that I object to in Nicola's position is his
>interpretation of identity and his claim that the statue
>and the clay are two different things. That is not something
>that either scientists or the proverbial T. C. Mits would say.
>
I'm feeling I need some clarification. What do we mean by
'different'? at least:
1) spatio-temporally disjoint:
1a) two spatio-temporally disjoint entities belonging to the same class
1b) two spatio-temporally disjoint entities belonging to different classes
2) two temporal parts of a continuant in a 4D ontology
3) two entities that belong to two disjoint classes
4) definitionally distinct:
4a) two entities belonging to two classes that share no defining element
4b) two entities belonging to two classes that share some but not
all defining elements
4b') two entities belonging to two classes that have related definitions
In Nicola's view I suppose that clay and vase (or statue) are
4b'-different, but they have some spatio-temporal overlap. Being
4b'-different is a matter of interpretation, say the way we
conceptualize some arrangement of the external world that is relevant
to our perception, culture, and interest. In this sense, as Jon
Awbrey put it, clay and vase are 'interpretive categories'; if you
want, we can go on formulating other linguistic chunks that actualize
more conceptualizations about the same world arrangement
(discontinuity, force field, temporal slice, or whatever you want to
call it): the hand of the artisan (metonymy by which we could
recognize a particular craft work), a flower pot (for a decorator), a
thirst-quenching mirage (for a lone walker lost in the Gobi desert),
goods to be preserved, etc.
I am sure enough that T.C.Mits would say that a state of a mass of
clay, a vase, a craft work style, a flower pot, a thirst-quenching
mirage, and selling goods are all different stuff.
Of course, if you constrain your intended meaning of 'different' to
'spatio-temporally disjoint', then there is only one entity, but do
you really want to describe (approximately as ontology can do) human
interpretation of reality on the basis of spatio-temporal
disjointness only?
IMO, identity criteria are a way of formalizing a conceptualization:
if you can define (some of) the dimensions by which humans (well, a
lot of humans) interpret and conceptualize external and internal
worlds, you can also get a more efficient communication, retrieval,
and so on.
Cheers
Aldo
--
*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*;*
Aldo Gangemi
Ontology and Conceptual Modeling Group
ITBM-CNR (National Research Council)
Viale Marx 15, 00137
Roma Italy
+3906.86090249
+3906.8273665 (fax)
+347.1868089 (cellular phone)
mailto://gangemi@saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it
http://saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it