Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
If you want to subsume tendencies under dispositions, then I propose that
you call traditional dispositional properties (being elastic, soluble,
etc.) 'passive dispositions' and call tendencies 'active dispositions'.
Think of an elastic rubber band. When stretched out it has an ACTUAL
tendency to contract (counteracted by your hands), but when just lying on
a table, it has only the dispostional property of getting a tendency to
contract if stretched.
Best,
Ingvar J
Original comment by ingvar.j...@philos.umu.se
on 8 Jan 2010 at 10:00
Hello Ingvar,
I suppose, then, the triggering process can be thought of as activating the
disposition into realization.
Something further occurs to me, which is that the triggering process for an
active
disposition is a specialization of the triggering process for the corresponding
passive disposition.
Arp and Smith (2008) have all dispositions being surefire dispositions. I'm
not
sure that we can ever be that precise in science; there will always be some
vagueness, not to mention finkishness. Is this because probabilistic
dispositions
are a bit fishy for ontology purposes?
Colin.
Original comment by batchelorc@rsc.org
on 8 Jan 2010 at 12:08
Colin,
Tendencies need no triggering; it is their nature to realize themselves as soon
as
there are no counter-tendencies. Tendencies can be characterized by two points:
(1)
a tendency is an entity whose realization can be counteracted by other
tendencies;
(2) a tendency is a potentiality that can exist without being realized. This
chracterization contains some small improvements on the entry "Tendency" that I
once
wrote for Burkhardt and Smith's, "Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology" (1991).
Ingvar
Original comment by ingvar.j...@philos.umu.se
on 8 Jan 2010 at 4:26
Hello,
I suppose this would be caught by the current BFO definition of disposition,
"under
conditions C". But what "conditions C" are is left unclear in BFO.
Colin.
Original comment by batchelorc@rsc.org
on 9 Jan 2010 at 10:15
Review in light of BFO2 Reference
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 7 May 2012 at 4:56
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:15
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 8 May 2012 at 4:37
This is not a blocker, in my view, for a BFO2 release.
I don't have any actual use cases at the moment, so do mark as deferred or
shelve it or whatever.
Original comment by batchelorc@rsc.org
on 9 May 2013 at 3:27
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
batchelorc@rsc.org
on 7 Jan 2010 at 11:42