Pat, (01)
I am not begging the question. I am deliberately avoiding it.
See my response to Paola in a previous note -- in which I
recommend throwing out as much terminology as possible. (02)
PH> ... you have defined "context" here to be a syntactic
> construction which is intended to denote or represent what are
> more commonly (and I think more correctly) called 'contexts'.
> This rather begs the question about what contexts (in the usual
> sense, i.e. the things your constructions denote or represent)
> actually *are*. (03)
As you have observed, people use the word 'context' in a large
number of confusing ways. Instead of trying to unravel all of
the confusion, I am using the boxes with nested propositions
to analyze and represent what is being said. (04)
In the process, I avoid using the word 'context' as much as
possible -- I just write CGs inside boxes. If pressed, I call
them 'context boxes', but most of the time, I just say that
they're boxes used to delimit the propositions stated by the
CGs inside the boxes. (05)
PH> You are here assuming then that the 'convinced' in this phrase
> is unanalysed, simple a three-place relation, which is how I
> will represent it also. (06)
> (Convinced Tom Sam (that (not (possible (that
> (exists ((x Cow))(JumpOver x Moon))) ))) ) (07)
Except for some syntactic details, that is how I would translate
the CG boxes to IKL. (08)
PH> Im not sure what you mean by 'the next time step' here, as
> we are talking about a logic rather than a process specification.
> But certainly it should be possible to write axioms allowing one
> to infer things about Sam's beliefs after the convincing is done. (09)
That is basically what I meant. Your relation 'later' corresponds
to the dyadic relation 'next', which I frequently use. (010)
PH> Exactly. One would use multiple ontologies, rather than a
> special logic, to represent the complexities of the various kinds
> of context. (011)
In that case, we seem to be fairly close. What you have suggested
is essentially what I was planning to do to map CG boxes to IKL. (012)
But Chris seemed to indicate that his position was quite a bit
different from what I had intended. (013)
John (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|