John, (01)
Ok, and could you say something about temporality?
1. Paul goes to the water fountain.
2. Wanda goes to the water fountain. (02)
Should I ignore time? Sentences in conversation occur in
order for good reasons, to indicate sequence or time.
Aristotle points out that we all come into logic with pre-existent
knowledge (PeK). He seems to indicate that without PeK that
a predicate is not possible. (03)
Can pre-existant knowledge to be ignored in creating an ontology?
Are there temporal and atemporal ontologies? Are there PeK and
non-PeK ontologies? And, can we really separate the logic from
the ontology? (04)
"All instruction given or received by way of argument
proceeds from pre-existent knowledge." (05)
"The pre-existent knowledge required is of two kinds. In some
cases admission of the fact must be assumed, in others
comprehension of the meaning of the term used, and sometimes
both assumptions are essential. Thus, we assume that every
predicate can be either truly affirmed or truly denied of any
subject...".
Logic, Book 1 (06)
-John Bottoms
FirstStar
Concord, MA
T: 978-505-9878 (07)
John F. Sowa wrote:
> John,
>
> There are multiple issues about the background knowledge necessary
> for interpreting natural language in context and about the logical
> operators for combining various sentences.
>
> JB> I'm confused by the sentences and by John's combination.
> > The use of "the" as the declarative indicates to me that
> > there is one water fountain. I assume (abduction) that they
> > are going to drink or that Wanda is going to hold the faucet
> > while Paul drinks, or vice versa.
>
> Given just those two sentences, deduction alone cannot add
> new information about which if any of them actually drink
> water or hold the faucet or anything else:
>
> RC> 1. Paul goes to the water fountain;
> >>
> >> 2. Wanda goes to the water fountain;
>
> The only combination that can be derived by strict deduction
> is the conjunction of #1 and #2. Other sentences can be
> derived by generalizing (i.e., throwing away some information):
>
> Someone goes to the water fountain.
>
> Someone goes to a water fountain.
>
> Someone goes somewhere.
>
> There is a person.
>
> There is a water fountain.
>
> You can't even derive the sentence "Two people went to the
> water fountain" unless you have additional information that
> Paul and Wanda are names of two distinct individuals.
>
> By abduction, you might assume that Paul is male and Wanda
> is female, and males are usually distinct from females.
> But deduction alone won't allow you to make that assumption.
> It's quite possible, for example, that Paul sometimes goes
> in drag and takes the name Wanda.
>
> That is why natural language understanding requires much
> more than just deduction.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|