Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
> I think we agree. A context, as treated in IKL, corresponds to a
> perspective (no cognitive agent implied) on a proposition *as if it
> were* true or false, irrespectively of whether it *is* true or false.
> (01)
Dear Waclaw, (02)
Does this solve the following earlier problem of yours: "The question,
again, is about propositions. The sentence "no roses are blue" was true
some time ago, and is false now; but does it correspond to the same
proposition in both cases? Is it the proposition that changed its truth
value, or are we really dealing with two distinct propositions: 'no
roses are blue at t1', and 'no roses are blue at t2'?" ? (03)
If "no roses are blue" are stated twice (in the way you have described)
*in the same context*, then it seems to me that a distinction such as
mine between *sentence meaning* and *used sentence meanings* is
nonetheless needed as a complement. (04)
all the very best,
Ingvar (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|