Chris and John (01)
I see a divergence in your latest posts. (02)
Instead of worrying about credits to Wittgenstein whose works I still
have to read, I was mostly thinking about my interaction with Late Yale
Philosopher Norwood Hansen that has been reported earlier in this Wiki. (03)
I would like to learn about - how we learn? (04)
If we did not speak or read the same language and yet if we understood
the underlying phenomena and processes very congruently or similarly, do
not the visualizations (since people do not want to call them picture
theory of theory meaning) and mental constructs (models) expressed
audio-visually or through subsequent clarification processes (similar to
silent movies?) get us to communicate cross culturally and beyond
restrictions of a particular language? (05)
Of course one would expect it to reach UN translation and interpretation
type of accuracy during deliberations and it is acceptable in the
absence of having a single language requirement for collaboration? Next
Generations are becoming more pictures (Media - AV) oriented rather than
depending too much on text! (06)
Thanks. (07)
Ravi (08)
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (09)
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (010)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com (011)
Professional viewpoints do not necessarily imply organizational
endorsement. (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
Menzel
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:54 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures (013)
On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Len Yabloko wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Thank you for clarifications and references about Wittgenstein's
> theory. (014)
Sure thing. (015)
> While I can't argue (due to lack of expertize in mathematical logic)
> about its theoretical applications, it seems to me that summarily
> writing off his work is a bit premature. (016)
My "write off" here is hardly premature. As I note, it is the upshot
of 80+ years of extensive analysis and discussion. (017)
> Firstly due to the lack of any viable alternative theory of meaning
> and information (please correct me if I am wrong). (018)
Well, ok. :-) First of all, a more or less niggling point is that W's
picture theory is a theory in name only; it can't really be called a
"theory" in any meaningful, scientific sense of the word. It is
little more than a series of (admittedly, philosophically rich and
evocative) aphorisms. More substantively, though, there is, to say
the least, hardly a lack of alternatives. Indeed, to say a bit more
than the least, with respect, saying there are no viable alternatives
to W's picture theory is a bit like saying there are no viable
alternatives to Aristotelian physics. The theory of meaning is
perhaps the single most important topic in philosophy and linguistics
(and among the more important topics in artificial intelligence) in
the last 50 years. The literature on is vast, indeed overwhelmingly
so. Somewhat randomly and off the top of my head: There is, to begin
with, so-called "Tarskian" semantics for first-order predicate logic
and the influential Davidsonian project of using that semantics as a
basis for a theory of meaning. There is possible world semantics for
intensional logics and the extensive program of Montague grammar built
upon possible world semantics, which was the dominant program in
natural language semantics among linguists well into the 90s and is
still influential. Among alternatives to Montague grammar are the
file-change semantics of Irene Heim and the more or less equivalent
discourse representation theory of Hans Kamp. Some sense of the
landscape here can be found in Porter and Partee, _Formal Semantics:
The Essential Readings_, Blackwell, 2002. (019)
Additionally, there are less formal, more philosophical theories of
meaning as well. Notably, possible world semantics spawned a huge and
influential literature on naming and reference that, in particular,
breathed new life into Mill's view that (in contrast to Frege) the
meaning of a name is exhausted by its referent. Equally important are
theories arising from W's own later work focusing on use and developed
more rigorously by the likes of Austin and Searle. There's also
important work that's been done on metaphor, conceptual roles,
propositional attitudes, mental spaces, languages of thought, etc
etc. For the lay of the land here, see e.g., Martinich, _The
Philosophy of Language_, Oxford UP, 2006. (020)
>> The general consensus among philosophers and linguists is that W's
>> so-called "picture theory of meaning" (based on the passages above)
>> is utterly untenable as a general semantic theory.
>
> Secondly calling his work "picture theory of meaning" does not do
> justice, (021)
Eh? It's just a standard label for the theory of meaning in the
Tractatus. And a quite accurate one, as it is practically lifted from
the pages themselves. (022)
> even given what you call "general consensus" (are you referring to
> mathematicians, philosophers or computer scientists?) (023)
Yes. :-) And linguists. (024)
> I came across a very different characterization of his work as
> theory of "language as use" (perhaps another consensus). Despite
> all these stamps put on his work over 80 years his main thesis of
> what I called "application as context" remain very viable. (025)
I'd bet a fair sum that W himself would not recognize "application as
context" as his thesis. At best, it's going to be a theory that is
perhaps *inspired* by W with only the vaguest family resemblances to
anything he actually said. And are you sure you're talking about the
Tractatus here? Your reference to language as use sounds much more
like the W of the Philosophical Investigations. (026)
> Here is an example that supports this point of view:
> This book is an extension of the discussions presented in Blair's
> 1990 book Language and Representation in Information Retrieval,
> which was selected as the "Best Information Science Book of the
> Year" by the American Society for Information Science
> http://www.springer.com/computer/book/978-1-4020-4112-9 (027)
I'm sure it's a fine book. I'm equally sure that it's quite a stretch
to think it is anything more than loosely connected to W's work.
Indeed, this *must* be the case, as W had the bulk of his ideas in the
Investigations worked before there was even such a thing as
information retrieval. (028)
-chris (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (031)
|