[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations

To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:39:14 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <908068.43608.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
You wrote:
I interpreted this to mean that a "mark" is a physical sign, one that can be sensed (possibly by a mechanical sensor.  Such a "mark" is not an interpretant of another sign.  It would not cease to be a mark if and when it is interpreted.
FK    That is fine. Nothing ceases to be a different thing, becasue someone interprets it. the point is whether we, the observers relate ourselves to it or not. Millions of people believe that certain objects are "messages for them" erroneously

Note that this is an identification.  A sign composed of stones piled in a certain way might not be identified as being a sign at all.
FK Well. What is not identification? being aware of something, or seeing it idential or known, familiar, etc. is also identification just as saying that "this is an apple". The point is tha a natural langauge is used in sufficient details to make sense. And if the explicit wording is limited, it is becasue the context is extensive. Both are needed to make anything a sign, symbol or a mark.  

... *but you do recognize it as being a pattern* ...
FK But you do, because even a tiny dot or a cloud are patterns whether you know more about them or not. In NLs your definitions  come from the basic set, objects, properties and relstions. If you see or hear something, then that *i*s an object (check out the meaning of the word object in Latin). And the most generic property of such an object is that it exists (ask John). And such an object, if the pattern is not recognized, then may be recognized as content - content known from previous experience (abstraction included) And contetn is a property, and then you may look for other objects with the same or similar property.
In my viewtype is just a name for a number of similar objects grouped as a set, hence an object of multiple incidences.

There's a distinction you don't appear to be making.  First, you define a "type" as being a name; then consider it a class with instances.  These are two different things. The meaning of "type" being discussed is the class with instances.  As such, it is not a sign, although signs can signify it.
FK Something eludes us here both. But I agree that a type is a
class with instances, and the name of the class is also type, which is a sign. Want examples?

Why unidentified?  It is identified as being a physical object (which takes significant world knowledge, treating yellow flower image and green leaf images as part of the same object).  The example had the observer interpreting the object as being an instance of one of several overlapping types.
FK We have the issue of precision on hand if it is identified as a physical object, then it is not identified az there are brazilian phyiscal objects out there.
The distinction is lacking here, too.  The words are signs.  It is not the signs that differ in specificity; each refers to a specific category. There may be multiple signs that refer to the same category.
FK The words are signs, and they are at the same time objects. If they denote chunks of reality, they are names, if they denote concepts (categories) they are (again) further broken down into form and content. the form of a concept is its name, and the content of a concept is its extension and intension, which may further be broken down, if you like.

My first impression was that you were referring to a linear continuum. A continuum of an indeterminate number of dimensions would seem more appropriate to me.
FK I do not like the term dimension, especially when we talk about a linear continuum, which is a direction, rather than a dimension.

Each individual would probably accept different extensions for the categories specified, depending on context.
FK Agreed,

I did not interpret these categories as a tree structure.
FK Not you personally, I agree

The point was different types of sign.  The first class (icon) portrays a similarity to its referent, allowing one who has never experienced a similar sign before a chance of figuring out the referent; the less symbolic the icon (e.g., a photograph), the easier this is.  The second class (index) depends on context, with the same sign meaning different things in different contexts; but yes, the interpreter must understand that something is being pointed to.  The third class (symbol) relies on the interpreter to already know the meaning of the sign.
1. How do you create different types (of signs)? Obviously by comparisons and abstractions. So what is the difference in making types of automobiles, etc. and creating types of signs?
2. You always depend and rely on context, which includes your mind and experience, whatever that is.

This is true of computer indexing in databases.  However, the discussion is in no way restricted to indexes in computer programs.
FK I am glad to hear that.
And also true of books, search engine bookmarks, etc.



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    (01)

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