[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class)

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: KR-language <KR-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:39:23 -0700
Message-id: <02A3DD4E90CB473A9C5C8BC5C93D8E1E@rhm8200>
I think I've missed some of the thread here,
but I wanted to comment on the Soames' paper.
I read the paper, and have two main comments.
1. At the very end, I think he is touching on the
right approach.  Namely, that meaning is
grounded in human perception. 
The starting point is the perceptions and
thinking of a single person.
2. I think the beginning and middle parts of his
paper are looking at less fundamental aspects of meaning.
Namely, shared meaning in communication between people.
A person must have a meaningful sentence in mind,
before  communicating it to another person.
Adding my own thoughts.
3. The meaning of a sentence depends on the context
of the thinker/speaker -- all of the pertinent knowledge
accumulated prior to the sentence.
4. Where does the mKR language fit into this picture?
mKR explicitly states/names the context which is implicit
in the mind of the thinker/speaker.
5. The thinker/speaker perceptions are specific examples of
    entity has characteristic;
which ground the context of the thinker/speaker.
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Freeman" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class)

> Chris,
> Re. "pitfalls": see earlier posts by me rejecting pointless arguments
> over the meaning of words.
> Choose your own meaning for "pitfall" or "sense" if you wish. I see no
> reason to argue about them.
> More narrowly note my comments were in response to Rich's reference to:
> The quote from Geoff Sampson supports a different approach to the
> interpretation of language. I give it because others may be unfamiliar
> with it.
> -Rob

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    (01)

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