Jon Awbrey schrieb:
> IJ: The correspondence theory of truth is not semantically mystical.
> Of course it makes good sense to say what you said.
> >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".
> 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.
> 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.
> I think that will take a little more work on our parts ...
Sure. But there is no need for you to start to discuss whether the
correspondence theory of truth is semantically meaningful or not. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)