The great minds, as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, tried to teach us one
simple truth: (01)
It is a big loss if the nature of symbols and signs with their signification
and meanings is misunderstood or corrupted. There are the sorts of things
which just signify or point out and the kinds of things which are signified
and pointed out. (02)
There are maps and territories. There are paper moneys (now easily
reproduced as toilet paper) and the precious metals (a valuable piece of
reality) which value they represent. There is an almost unlimited $531
trillion market of speculative financial instruments and the limited real
property housing stock (a solid piece of reality). (03)
Artificial symbols and signs, verbal and nonverbal, all sorts of hyperreal
creations, are today harmfully domineering artifacts, fully replacing the
real life entities. (04)
It is good time for the reality check: to remember that there are symbols
and signs but also real things in the world, which relationships the human
ideas are designed to mediate. For the first ones are just the surrogates
and substitutes, and skillful manipulating with them is no more a big deed.
What counts is how they are corresponding (or mapping) to the bits and
portions and pieces of the world, that is, their real meanings and
significations. What counts how the human ideas mediate all such meaningful
connections. (05)
Summing up: (06)
Reality and just reality, with its classes of entities and relations, with
its real laws and constraints, is the only ultimate source of all
substantial meanings and truths. (07)
Azamat Abdoullaev (08)
PS: "Every sign is also a thing". Augustine. (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ockham (010)
> Dick,
>
> The fundamental point we've been trying to say is that
> most digital computers have no eyes, ears, feelings,
> or anything that resembles human "mental" symbols.
>
> RHM> Isn't it strange that I think about real mappings when
> > someone challenges me to define the "meaning" of my language?
> > Why do I think that "meaning" is connected to reality?
>
> It isn't strange at all if you're talking to your Ayn Randian
> friends. But it is extremely strange if you expect any
> digital computer to understand what you mean by context.
>
> But you also say that you are using mKR not only to
> communicate with computers, but also to communicate with
> other human beings who do have eyes, ears, and feelings.
>
> That is a fine thing to do. But in that case, I suggest
> that there's a better language for that purpose than mKR.
> It's called English.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|