Hi Dick, (01)
There are various ways we can try to define meaning. Frankly I
disagree with the one Soames addresses. I don't think the answer lies
in "truth". My understanding is that there are big problems with
determining the "truth" of many statements. Another interpretation for
my reference to "pitfalls" in formal logic. (02)
So I don't like Soames solution. I was just glad to see the issue
being addressed. (03)
I'm also not wild about the idea of grounding meaning in human
perception. This says "embodiment" to me. I've even seen arguments
that mathematics can only be understood if embodied! (04)
While I am sympathetic with embodiment as yet another form of the
general movement away from theory, personally I think you can capture
all you need of it in data-based approaches like that advocated by
Chris Anderson (Axiomatic ontology thread.) (05)
Which is to say, I think the key is in the many different ways data
can come together (c.f. Vitiello's many-body theory), not any
particular set of data (embodiment.) (06)
More generally, I agree with you that "the meaning of a sentence
depends on the context of the thinker/speaker". The problem with your
mKR formalism is I just don't think you will be able to enumerate all
these different "meanings", list all distinguishing cases, etc. To
attempt to do so strikes me as a bit like trying to label all the
patterns in a kaleidoscope (the "meaning" of each piece in all
possible contexts of the others?) (07)
Rather than defining new sets of labels as I understand your mKR to
do, I think the way ahead will be to look at the different ways data
can come together to generate new classes/concepts/"languages"
spontaneously. (08)
-Rob (09)
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Richard H. McCullough
<rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rob
>
> 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;
> http://mKRmKE.org/ (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|