John

You pointed out recently that there have been many (failed) attempts
to define concepts such as Consciousness and Free Will.

There is a simple reason for all these failures. These concepts are
hard to define. They are hard to define because they are such high-level
abstractions. You have to discard all the details (measurements)
that distinguish one case from another. If you are successful, the
result will be something very simple and elegant -- stripped of all
irrelevant details. If you are not successful, the result will be just
another failed "definition" to throw in the bit bucket.

Free Will is another example where I think that the Objectivists
have the right answer. But they just don't have the simple, elegant
_expression_ of the right answer. I claim that I do -- stated in either
English or mKR.

Free Will :: I choose my actions.
Free Will :: I do choose od my action done;

This reasoning applies equally well to upper ontologies.
They consist of high-level abstractions which are hard to define.
That's why I say that axiomatic concepts are appropriate for
upper ontologies.


Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial