519 research outputs found
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
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
Mereology then and now
This paper offers a critical reconstruction of the motivations that led to the development of mereology as we know it today, along with a brief description of some questions that define current research in the field
How Philosophy of Mind Needs Philosophy of Chemistry
By the 1960s many (perhaps most) philosophers had adopted âphysicalismâ â the view that physical causes fully account for mental activities. However, controversy persists about what count as âphysical causesâ. âReductiveâ physicalists recognize only microphysical (elementary-particle-level) causality. Many (perhaps most) physicalists are ânon-reductiveâ â they hold that entities considered by other (âspecialâ) 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 âsingularitiesâ prevent reduction of chemistry to microphysics, and demonstrating âdownward causationâ in complex networks of chemical reactions
How Philosophy of Mind Needs Philosophy of Chemistry
By the 1960s many (perhaps most) philosophers had adopted âphysicalismâ â the view that physical causes fully account for mental activities. However, controversy persists about what count as âphysical causesâ. âReductiveâ physicalists recognize only microphysical (elementary-particle-level) causality. Many (perhaps most) physicalists are ânon-reductiveâ â they hold that entities considered by other (âspecialâ) 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 âsingularitiesâ prevent reduction of chemistry to microphysics, and demonstrating âdownward causationâ in complex networks of chemical reactions
The Levels of the Empirical Sciences
It is the aim of this paper to develop and defend an interpretation of level of scientific discipline within the truth-maker framework. In particular, I exploit the mereological relation of proper parthood, which is integral to truth-maker semantics, in order to provide an account of scientific level
- âŠ