You're completely wrong. You don't need pretentious words like "ontological" to express what is. You like words like that because they're a crutch. You could have just said "It feels dumb to try to apply biological features to ideas." Then everybody knows what you're talking about and there's no ambiguity whatsoever. There is, however, ambiguity with the word "ontological." You used a word which can mean "of or relating to essence or the nature of being" when all you were trying to say was "an idea or thing." Even now I'm still not sure what you were trying to say because of how cryptic and ambiguous the word is.
The word "promise" has more meaning than "to bind one's feet" because "to bind one's feet" is overly specific due to its use of too many words. It's for the same reason that we say "God" and not "Deified anthropomorphized personification of intelligence, existential meaning, perfection, and other attributes that are otherworldly but ultimately familiar in a relative sense to humanity." The former is a thing, the latter is you failing to describe that thing in a sensible way. You aren't making your expression of the concept better just because you're getting more detailed in how you describe it. As I said earlier, if you can't put something in plain English then it's because you don't know it well enough. A word like "ontological" is a construct created in order to simplify a philosophical concept for the purpose of efficiency. It creates more ambiguity and not less because its whole purpose is to encapsulate an area of thought. You reflexively used it as a substitute for a more simple word like "concept" or maybe "existential concept" (still no clue what you were trying to say) because you were afraid of simplicity. Simplicity is scary because you can more easily be contradicted if you're actually saying shit about shit. If you use an ambiguous, rarely used word like "ontological" then your meaning can revolve reflexively around that word. "O-Oh, I was actually using the THIRD definition of that word! Not the fourth one! I-I was actually framing that statement in the context of Socrates, i-idioot…" What motivated the usage of that overly complex phrase wasn't that it was the best way to express the concept, it was that it was the safest way.
The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz's Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects. Recent work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the principle fails in the quantum domain (see French 2006).
An ontology is the set of categories and concepts available to your mind - I don't know if I'm going to butcher this but: If you trained a computer to be able to tell the difference between a photo of a dog and a photo of a cat, you might show it a photo of a chair and it might come to the conclusion on balance that it is a dog.
That doesn't mean it is a dog.
What it means is that the computer has an inadequate "ontology". As far as the computer knows that chair is a dog - but it's only because it doesn't really have a reference frame for anything else. All it knows is cat OR dog.
I don't know if I've butchered that as I said but I hope that makes sense. So when I say an ontology that you might seek to reduce to "chaos" OR "order" - (i.e. the starting point to recognise an object or process is that it represents a discernible pattern) initially prior to that level of abstraction people might have used the conceptual isomorphism of metaphor or analogy through things like gender.
When I say something is a "red herring" for example I don't mean it is literally a "red herring" I just use it as a metaphor for "something which misleads you off the trail of something" because it's simpler to say "red herring". We bootstrap functional concepts we've encountered all the time a la Douglas Hofstader's Analogy as the Core of Cognition.
If you imagine human thought as starting with a smaller ontology based on our functional survival which then expands as civilisation gets more complex it then starts to develop a broader one. However at the start it would have bootstrapped more familiar concepts.
As I said - we wouldn't have imagined brains as operating like computers (whether or not they do) prior to the notion of computers as an artifact.
Andrew Martinez
I dont know … can we user??? what do you have to add to the topic.
All you have is picture with a statement next to it … that has no argument.
Why is the dance between these truth? Why is that the only truth? What does this have to do with improving myself?
Simple question. If I agree with your image then how is my life improved? If I dont how is my life improved?
What about that image and those beliefs within will give me the ability to do something I could not do before?
You are wasting your life on nonsense user, get a job. Improve your bank account
Owen Richardson
Saved - thank you.
Owen Hill
Checked, but I'm retired (saw BTC being used to escape capital controls out of China in August 2016) and had XRP and ETH before that - if only that admissions HR rep hadn't thought thought I wasn't talking gibberish when I was mentioning XRP and ETH in my 2015 magic circle applications eh?
