RHM> I consider any language to be a tool for thinking.
I agree with that point. The languages of mathematics, logic,
and computer science have enabled people to think about complex
issues in far greater depth and precision than they can in
ordinary NLs. But the conclusions they reach can always be
restated and explained in a natural language.
RHM> IKL, as a logical language, provides a tool for reasoning.
> I put IKL in the class of languages like Prolog.
I suspect that you are trying to draw some kind of distinction
that will make mKR a more "human" language than IKL or Prolog.
But any language that you can implement on a digital computer
is limited by the formal structure of the computer. You cannot
implement an informal language on a computer that, by design,
is a formal system.
Some languages do have better "human factors" than
If you want to claim that, feel free to do so. But when
it comes to defining anything implementable on a digital
computer, the human factors or the philosophical issues
that motivated the design are irrelevant.
Suggestion: If you want to discuss philosophy on some blog
with people who are interested, please do so. But if you want
us to help you define and implement your system, let's focus
on computable details, not philosophical speculation.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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