[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Vision and Observation

To: Ontolog <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:02:53 -0400
Message-id: <46C199ED.717D73EC@xxxxxxx>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (01)

IJ = Ingvar Johansson
JA = Jon Awbrey    (02)

JA: I think it is fair to say that key, active ingredients of
    truth are missing from the correspondence theory recipe.    (03)

IJ: I agree, more needs to be said;  and I think it can be said.  However,
    I will here just rest content with pointing out a seemingly neglected
    thing.  As long as epistemological questions about the veridicality of
    everyday perception are bracketed, then everyday life supplies us with
    very good examples of the essence the correspondence theory of truth.
    We simply check statmentents such as 'the cat is on the mat', 'it is
    raining', 'there's beer in the fridge', etc. against what we perceive.
    If what we pereceive *corresponds* to the statement, we regard the
    statement as true -- otherwise not.  Don't mix semantic questions
    such as 'what is the correspondence theory of truth saying?' with
    epistemological questions such as 'how do we know that a certain
    statement is true?'.    (04)

JA: One can of course ''pose'' a distinction between epistemological
    and semantic, but is that distinction real or merely a pose --
    a nominal or verbal distinction without a difference?  There
    has been a lot of discussion of physics lately, so let me
    try to recall some lesson of physics that got engrained
    in my brain in times now dim.    (05)

JA: Can we really and truly dissociate the semantics of terms like
    "duration", "length", and "mass" from the epistemological stance
    of a particular frame of reference, or the operational resources
    of the apparatus that we use to measure them?  I don't think so.    (06)

IJ: Put my point his way then:    (07)

IJ: From the epistemological stance of everyday life
    and the semantics of ordinary language, it makes
    good sense to say that 'what is perceived'
    corresponds to 'what has been said'.    (08)

IJ: The correspondence theory of truth is not semantically mystical.    (09)

Ingvar,    (010)

Of course it makes good sense to say what you said.    (011)

>From the epistemological stance of everyday life and the semantics
of ordinary language, it makes good sense for me to say that what
I see outside my window where I am at the moment corresponds to
what has been said when I say, "the sun rose this morning".    (012)

But what it means to say, "the sun rose this morning", is a thing
that can take several thousand years of human scientific inquiry
to clarify just what it means for a given application, context,
intent, or objective.    (013)

And what we have been talking about here is part of a project that
began some 50 odd years ago, just since I've been paying attention,
that is trying to bring machines with absolutely zero innate sense
of our everyday life and our ordinary language into a condition of --
not just confluence with but -- enlightening interaction with them.    (014)

I think that will take a little more work on our parts ...    (015)

Jon Awbrey    (016)

inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o    (017)

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    (018)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>