great

Is this a valid statement?: "Temporal Regions serve as containers or intervals for Processes."

Are the slides for this presentation available somewhere for download ?

Rodriguez George White Laura Clark Patricia

Thanks for sharing such valuable information! I need some advice: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). How can I transfer them to Binance?

Wolff, Christian von: Philosophia Prima Sive Ontologia

Thanks for haven given me an explanation to my idea of "All borders (boundaries) are imaginary, but they do help us relate!"

Truly one of the most insightful philosophers of our time.

This seems like it’s from a different series as the other lectures on the playlist. Does it cover the same content?

Is there an ontology for systems engineering now ?

Excellent lecture! Thank you. I'm curious about the goal of getting manufacturers of biomedical experimental equipment to use OBI when they were publishing their catalogues - perhaps they were skittish because they saw their manufacturing as not so much a biomedical investigation so much as perhaps a commercial manufacturing process? That is, they didn't want to feel constrained by OBI but would have perhaps been more onboard with the idea if another ontology was used and/or included in the process, such as an ontology specific to manufacturing or industrial processes or perhaps commercial entities?

A brillian lecture that I'll be recommending to all of my students! Also precious are comments from John Corcoran at the end (ontological square, relations, indefinite propositins, regimented English vs. FOL newspeak, Boole as an Aristotelian). I miss these great teachers from my graduate studies in Buffalo. And I am really grateful to them!

A meaningful life is not bifurcated between winning and losing, between, making it all the way and making it none of the way, between success and failure. A meaningful life is about making an effort toward being happy and being a successful as you want to be. Obviously there are those who win the gold medal and there are those who don't win any medal but they were in the race. It is the subject of life and I'm only at 53 minutes 54 seconds into your video.

From which year are these lectures from ?

Your description of the computer software programmer situation does not in any way reflect what are the real problems of software engineering. The description is perfectly wrong. Software engineering these days doesn't involve algorithm construction, it is not "hard" in that way, it is usually about well established abstraction methods and making translations from the real problem to code. The problem is how the capitalist system, its recruitment methods, and career systems interfers with a sound programming-end-user interaction, that has been described by the Agile manifesto and other initiatives to provide a sound development environment, that is almost never implemented in real life. The software engineers probably know lots of philosophy "by instinct", but the other persons in the system don't. And they don't care about philosophy unless they can be convinced that "philosophy is a winning market strategy", and for all they can, they will preserve their own positions by any means, fine or foul.

We already know: Java programmers have complained all the time why they need to be philosophers in order to design a sound object oriented design. The problem is the bad state of object orientation programming language design, so the languages need to be improved by applying a sound ontology on the design of them. I find the current state in ontology research very interesting as a way to improve the program languages, but the programming languages also suffer from a bad knowledge of psychology, so there is more to fix.

The Vienna Circle were a bunch of insane philosophers, imposing physicism upon everything else, and causing a lot of mental blocks upon wannabe engineers, that want to analyse everything into parts, and object to every subjective statement because it cannot be quantified with a damned scientific instrument. They made themselves incurable idiots, and spread this idiocy over the world. If you want to be really scientific in a way that concur with modern science, you really really need to trash them and instead use pragmatism, which is equally applicable to physics, social science, and by darn'd Jove: computer simulations! I really understand why Wittgenstein detested them as fools.

Wittgenstein I had no Vienna Circle intention with Tractatus, his intention seems to already then have been a pruning of what he saw as common "superstitions" of philosophy itself, then mainly typical over-generalizations of confused and ambiguous concepts such as "free will" (I can take a lot of others too, but that would superimpose my thinking upon him, so I won't) If this appearance is supported by other observations about him, Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II do similar things: restrict the ideation in itself by readdressing thinking to practical examples by "language games". To me it doesn't at all appear that Wittgenstein even approached "atomism" and the idea that reduction into parts reveal all connections that there are to be concluded. This atomist pseudo-Wittgenstein is an invention by the Vienna Circle, that are doing something quite different: imposing restrictions about what we are allowed to reason about by labeling every haram-question as "metaphysics". The Vienna Circle were physicists, while the real Wittgenstein was a language guy.

What a bunch of hogwash! The measure of your "meaning" is not *_success_* or impressing other humans or anything like that. It is if you feel that you have achieved something when your end is near.

39:17: _"Pushkin's version ... popularized in the movie ... ?"_ 1. This is a thingie, an object observed through the glasses of a poet, that produces some drama, then reinterpreted through the glasses of a film director ... Could we skip all the glasses and observe the factual object instead of dancing verbal ballet around and make dramatical gestures? 2. Only Russians care about Pushkin. If the meaning of *his* life was drama, then he was very successful.

Amaznig stuff.

First

I know how the brain works..🤷‍♂️

Try asking it to explain how it reacted to both its first erection and first period. No matter how much you try to coax it into answering like a human, it gets really, really confused! :D

This guy doesn't know what he is talking about, totems being "neo-pagan"? He should consult some books in religious ontology.

As a neo-pagan, must I now believe in the Singularity? I thought the Singularity rather was some sciento-religious stuff. (Some fools making science into a religion) I mean: computers, magical "AI", "exponential growth" and such. That's not neo-pagan. Neo-pagan is mother nature, the horned god, astrology and stuff. Or asatru and other revivals.

I am a student in AI, not philosophy. I disagree with a lot of things and come to believe you don't understand AI and misrepresented it. I didn't read your book though, but the talk content is not convincing. My points: - What is a "will" even? Can we not say that a "will" is just an urge to do something that ultimately leads to an optimization of joy of life (which should reflect evolutionary advantageous behavior)? In that sense AI also has a will because it always optimizes for some minimum of a function as well. We as the AI engineers can just choose what it should optimize for. We can also set the objective function s.t. minimizing it results in the same kind of behavior humans do, or completely different good or bad behaviors. The fear about AI is that bad/not careful humans let their AI loose to onto the world with the wrong objective. - When you explain what AI is, you're only explaining AI that solves Supervised learning tasks (which is just function approximation). There is also Reinforcement Learning (which is not function approximation), which essentially also what animals and humans do. In reinforcement learning, we allow AI to interact with the world and learn by trial and error. There does not need to be any data prepared for that. It creates the data on the fly from the current interactions with the world. That's why RL methods can also be used for things like stock market exchange, while supervised learning methods can not. AI that interacts with the world on-line and learns while it interacts is gonna be the real deal, not AI programmed explicitly through the data that was collected by humans. AI already exceeds human performance in some tasks/games thanks to RL. It would not be possible to have an AI that outperforms the Starcraft II players just by Supervised Learning from the game replays (except if you had infinite compute at each millisecond and did brute force search). - In order to deal with complex systems, we don't need an exact model, just a probabilistic approximation, that is carefully dealing with uncertainty. E.g., we humans also don't have a full model in their head of what the other humans are thinking in the traffic, and we can still estimate what the other person is gonna do and perform. I so no reason why AI can't do the same. Ai can also work in an uncertain environment (again, Chess, Starcraft, Dota2... are all environments where AI is better than human performance, even though facing human opponents, which is not modelable) - When you answered the question of Yulia about AI outperforming humans, that's exactly what I mean. RL is outperforming humans, and it does not base knowledge on human knowledge as you explain. It completely learns from scratch. The human-engineered features thing is a thing of the past, and not necessary anymore, because since 2012 with the Imagenet success, Neural nets are much better at feature engineering than humans. - From what I understand in AI research, all that is currently missing for AI to outperform humans in almost any domain, is how to build an effective model of the world. And you can see already that AI is capable of (seemingly) understanding the world, from ChatGPT, and from the recent video generation methods. Again, no need to really understand the world (humans also don't). All that is necessary, is a good enough model. - In general as I understand you, to you a "model" is something that accurately describes some system. But I think even physical models are often not completely accurate because they're modelling systems that are inside of our world, and thus influenced by some random noise. We are always dealing with noise that comes from our world into the system that we are trying to model. So we can't anyway have an accurate model. We always therefore in any problem that we deal with, have to use an approximate model.

Generated by AI

I make a distinction between culture and civilization, and none of your closing remarks pertained to culture in this sense. Culture is the concert you are going to listen to while the road that gets you there is a civilizational achievement

I have watched this video a number of times now and have learned to pay close attention to the methodology and ODSD in particular. The guard railways provided by BFO is an amazing foundation in the way of modular Ontology design and construction. In the realm of software engineering and the use of ontology as the grounding artifact needs work and lots of tooling. I'm surprised this video has not received more views, attention and thoughtful commentary.

캬

Can you tell me what Nelson Goodman wrote on aboutness? Fact, fiction forecast. ?

God who created the Heaens and the earth, will always be in control.

You're merely listing shortcomings of a model that's been superseded shortly after this presentation. It's like writing a book on "why automobiles will never replace horses" after seeing the first Otto motor.

HEALTH IS NOWADAYS DEFINED (by Medical Institutions) AS THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY PROBLEM … „perfect Happiness“ which you can only induce chemically with an artificial Coma. 😊 Jobst Landgrebe

Very interesting presentation! Thank you for sharing!

Really enjoyed your lecture on ontology best practices! For context, I've spent over a decade as a Vice President in risk management at a Singapore financial institution. However, I have combined this with system development expertise (I can code). This unique blend is what fuels my current project: adopting an ontology-powered solution for strong AI in the workplace. This approach will be groundbreaking as it draws from the best practises from corporate life and applies it in an academic setting. On a lighter note, I'm also a Manchester alum! I lived in Whitworth Park back when United won the treble and City got relegated. Looking forward to diving into your book

It seems to me that what Scheler is pointing out in your quote 1:39:48 is little more than the simple phenomenological objection. I do not in fact take a drink of molecules, I take a drink of water, which could be understood as molecules if I took the particular abstract view of the thing that allowed me to think of what I am drinking to be molecules. His view doesn't seem to isolate the object from these abstract views, rather, once it's attained as what it is, it can be grasped further through the use of abstract views. I think that is why the first quote uses non-Cartesian language and the second uses the specific name (use of "things", rather than "object" name). But maybe I'm drinking the cool-aid.

Ever hear of Anatoly Fomanko? Not a small can of worms regarding history _as it was formalized._ A world class Russian mathematician and statistician.

AI will work out the collective meaning of the whole of the human race and it will work out the destiny before we can ever even think of our destiny. AI will repair itself humans will make sure it reaches a point where it will take control of every eviroment. This is only the start look where it's all got to now.

Impressive!

My substance just had an accident all over the floor.

I´ve heard that cats and dogs can have neuroses and that there are pet psychologists.

Might it be better to say every frog is a reptile?

of cource the digestive system was an intelligent design. no damn way something WITH so many other dependent systems in concert couldn't have been well thought out. not engineered ? NONSENCE. so science is just actual just magic all this time/

In the Residential Real Estate domain we have been working on what we've named the OREO Foundry for a few years now; it is a large body of work. We have been following the BFO 2020 design methodology. 2024 is the year that we make the foundry publically available and hope that others will hope to get involved.

Hello Barry, Thanks for the great talk. This particular topic is of high importance for my work. Are your thoughts and examples of this talk already concretized in some publications of yours? If so it would be great to know their names. Thanks again for publishing all this content! Edit: I wrote the question while listening, I figured out you mentioned a paper in the Q&A.

10:30 AI only works for a short time and then backfires 31:00 indefinite boundaries 33:00 further reasons 44:10 48:00 51:45

Astounded that Landgrebe is so off the mark regarding Heidegger's supposed "skepticism." He was nothing of the sort. As for the accusation of postmodernism, its at best a half-truth.

Let's see... by this definition of function, namely: the reason for the existence of the entity which has the function. Then can we assert that God- as-function is the reason for the existence of the entity (God) which has then the function--God. God itself is the reason for God being an existent. . . . I feel like I am in a hall of mirrors.....