@jyoshimi I've lightly studied merology but otherwise I'm a naif.
@dougmerritt nice to meet you! I like mereology as a topic, since the "parts" of conscious experiences should somehow be related to the "parts" of brain activity, but what exactly a part is in each case is pretty subtle and mysterious (certainly NOT something like a Lego block). But I tend not to find much need for formal mereology in my work, beyond having a few concepts like mereological sum available. So basically I'm pretty noobish there too
@dougmerritt yeah I think there are reasonable applications there, and also in semantics. Barry Smith has done quite a bit of good work and he also has his formal ontology database modeling stuff (e.g. this:https://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/IntroOntology_Course.htm) which is interesting, and another good application of the tools.
@jyoshimi That link is dead -- although his front page is chock full of ontology this that and the other.
@jyoshimi 'the "parts" of conscious experiences should somehow be related to the "parts" of brain activity'
Something about that gives me pause. That *has* to be true, otherwise such things would be purely atomic, which makes no sense.
Therefore mereology must apply, although I'm not sure I was looking at it quite like that before.
@jyoshimi Nice to meet you too!
akes sense. I'm coming at it from a viewpoint of linguistics and traditional (not LMM) AI.
I've gone back to it several times feeling like there's more to it than meets the eye.
There is a lot of terra incognita in this and related subjects!