Neuron example for having vs. playing role is not an example of a role

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Anatomical and physiological processes as such are not realizations of roles 
(note that the examples of roles in the section preceding this example give no 
anatomical or physiological examples, which we see as correct).  Thus, whatever 
pyramidal neurons are doing in lieu of the absence of some process that 
stellate (not stellar) neurons typically participate in, they are not taking 
over the "role" of those stellate neurons.

Furthermore, we were unable to find easily online any more information about 
this physiological phenomenon.  And thus it is hard to dissect ontologically 
what is really going on.  Is there a reference for this statement?  Kandel and 
Schwartz perhaps?

We urge the removal of this example from the reference document.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hoga...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I concur on this. I believe its classification as a role stems from Barry's 
definition as something "optional". Here's the text:

ELUCIDATION: b is a role means: 
b is a realizable entity 
& b exists because there is some single bearer that is in some special 
physical, social, or institutional set of circumstances in which this bearer 
does not have to be
& b is not such that, if it ceases to exist, then the physical make-up of the 
bearer is thereby changed. [061-001]

I would rather it be that the case "exists because there is some special 
physical .. circumstances" was removed. In part, I don't know what makes some 
physical circumstances "special", whereas I have at least a guess of what that 
means in the other cases.

The other word used to describe these are "externally-grounded" as opposed to 
internally grounded. While this sounds like a clear distinction I've had 
trouble, in practice, being very confident in my assessment of whether one or 
the other obtains.

Is your suggestion to remove the example related to the issue I have, or is it 
because the background paper is not cited? 

If the example were recast as an example of function would you think it 
correct? As disposition?

Thanks,
Alan

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think the example should be deleted from the section where it is now: page 58 
the surrounding of role-playing vs. role_having.

It looks more like a disposition to me. It might be a function, but in order to 
decide on that, I'd need the background information about the phenomenon the 
example is referring to.

Thanks,
Mathias

Original comment by MBrochhausen@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:48