Re: [Obi-plan-branch] [Obi-relations] [Obi-role-branch] role clean up-> protocolapplication, natural process

[Matthew P. <mat...@nc...>]

On Thursday 24 January 2008, Smith, Barry wrote:
> At 06:38 AM 1/24/2008, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> >On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Melanie Courtot wrote:
> > > > At 07:31 PM 1/22/2008, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > > >>If the entity is a process in which an incision is made in the
> > > >>animal, some tissue is cut and then sutured, and the animal is closed
> > > >>up, we have a number of possibilities around what might have
> > > >>motivated it ( or for which the process was "designed"). It could be
> > > >>that it is a sham surgery, it could be that it is an unlearned
> > > >>attempt to heal, it could be the cruel act of a sadist. These
> > > >>descriptions feel like the process "plays some role" that is
> > > >>essentially determined socially. So here there is a similarity.
> > > >
> > > > What motivated it, motivated it, independently of any description we
> > > > assign to it later.
> >
> >The act is the same in each case. The plan realised is different. Is this
> > not sufficient?
>
> Sufficient for some purposes (just as it is sufficient for some
> purposes to identity an immune epitope with a set of ordered pairs of
> molecules). But wrong.
> The act realized by the parrot when it utters: "I promise to pay you
> $5 tomorrow" is different from the act realized by me when I utter
> this to realize the plan of making  a promise.

Can you spell out for me which part of the activity the parrot undertook in 
uttering "I promise to pay you $5 tomorrow" is different to that undertaken 
when you utter the same phrase?

> >As a logical follow-on from this, does this also sudgest that roles should
> >stick to things that happened, and the 'motiviational' roles should move
> > into the plan?
>
> Can you clarify the question?

Not sure I can untill we have a broader consensus on what is going on here.

M

> BS
>
> >Matthew