Mereology and uncertainty

Mereology as an art of composing complex concepts out of simpler parts is suited well to the task of reasoning under uncertainty: whereas it is most often difficult to ascertain whether a given thing is an element of a concept, it is possible to decide with belief degree close to certainty that the class of things is an ingredient of an other class, which is sufficient for carrying out the reasoning whose conclusions are taken as true under given conditions. We present in this work a scheme for reasoning based on mereology in which mereology in the classical sense is fuzzified in analogy to the concept fuzzification in the sense of L. A. Zadeh. In this process, mereology becomes rough mereology

"Possible Definitions of an ’A Priori’ Granule\ud in General Rough Set Theory" by A. Mani

We introduce an abstract framework for general rough set theory from a mereological perspective and consider possible concepts of ’a priori’ granules and granulation in the same. The framework is ideal for relaxing many of the\ud relatively superfluous set-theoretic axioms and for improving the semantics of many relation based, cover-based and dialectical rough set theories. This is a\ud relatively simplified presentation of a section in three different recent research papers by the present author.\u

Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science

A collection of papers presented at the First International Summer Institute in Cognitive Science, University at Buffalo, July 1994, including the following papers: ** Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, Barry Smith ** The Bounds of Axiomatisation, Graham White ** Rethinking Boundaries, Wojciech Zelaniec ** Sheaf Mereology and Space Cognition, Jean Petitot ** A Mereotopological Definition of 'Point', Carola Eschenbach ** Discreteness, Finiteness, and the Structure of Topological Spaces, Christopher Habel ** Mass Reference and the Geometry of Solids, Almerindo E. Ojeda ** Defining a 'Doughnut' Made Difficult, N .M. Gotts ** A Theory of Spatial Regions with Indeterminate Boundaries, A.G. Cohn and N.M. Gotts ** Mereotopological Construction of Time from Events, Fabio Pianesi and Achille C. Varzi ** Computational Mereology: A Study of Part-of Relations for Multi-media Indexing, Wlodek Zadrozny and Michelle Ki

How Philosophy of Mind Needs Philosophy of Chemistry

By the 1960s many (perhaps most) philosophers had adopted ‘physicalism’ ─ the view that physical causes fully account for mental activities. However, controversy persists about what count as ‘physical causes’. ‘Reductive’ physicalists recognize only microphysical (elementary-particle-level) causality. Many (perhaps most) physicalists are ‘non-reductive’ ─ they hold that entities considered by other (‘special’) sciences have causal powers. Philosophy of chemistry can help resolve main issues in philosophy of mind in three ways: developing an extended mereology applicable to chemical combination, testing whether ‘singularities’ prevent reduction of chemistry to microphysics, and demonstrating ‘downward causation’ in complex networks of chemical reactions

How Philosophy of Mind Needs Philosophy of Chemistry

By the 1960s many (perhaps most) philosophers had adopted ‘physicalism’ ─ the view that physical causes fully account for mental activities. However, controversy persists about what count as ‘physical causes’. ‘Reductive’ physicalists recognize only microphysical (elementary-particle-level) causality. Many (perhaps most) physicalists are ‘non-reductive’ ─ they hold that entities considered by other (‘special’) sciences have causal powers. Philosophy of chemistry can help resolve main issues in philosophy of mind in three ways: developing an extended mereology applicable to chemical combination, testing whether ‘singularities’ prevent reduction of chemistry to microphysics, and demonstrating ‘downward causation’ in complex networks of chemical reactions