|From:||FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:15:21 +0000 (GMT)|
On 8/17/2010 1:28 AM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
> Further to that you write: “a type is a pattern for classifying marks”.
> In my view type is just a name for a number of similar objects grouped
> as a set, hence an object of multiple incidences.
That is the extensional view, which treats sets as fundamental and
types as derivative. But the extensional view runs into trouble when we want to talk about things that don't exist, don't yet exist, or exist in sets that are far too big or too difficult to see.
FK>In NLs you have nouns that are either in plural or in singular forms. Also, you have definite and indefinite articles. Some nouns take irregular plural forms, etc. All these are used to identify types, sets, individuals, etc. Proper nouns become common nouns, toher common nouns are used as proper nouns. the issue of derivation does not seem to play a role here. A different semantic breakdown is needed
> Therefore "a token is the result of classifying a mark according
> to some type" means to me that they are specific or individual
> members of the former sets.
That distinction is unworkable as a criterion for practice. For
example, we can define the type 'cow', but we can never deal with
the set of all cows. We can define the type 'unicorn' and state
very clearly that no unicorn could ever by a cow, independently
of whether or not it exists.
>Nothing is workable that uses quantifiers like all in practice. And to my regret manipulating with words that denote nothing, or objects that do not exist do not sound sound enough to build sensible science on them. Like for me the defintion of a point and zero dimension, just as working with nil is very peculiar in logic.
I realize that some logicians try to reduce all of mathematics to
set theory, but that is a very recent (and unfinished and perhaps
even unfinishable) effort. When we're dealing with ordinary language and thought, types are fundamental and sets are derivative.
>FK To me space, time, motion,object, property, relationship (NOT Boolean), form and content, individual and generic, quality and quantity and a few more are the fundamental concepts.
Number to me is a form and content: like one/one, which at the same time quality and quantity as well. I am sorry about the digression
> I should add, that all of the above items are a product of
> convention, not just your symbols. A symbol is a man made object
> to stand in for a not man made object, a “surrogate”. But it is
> not just man made objects that are used that way. Think of a
> rainbow, etc.
Every semiotician since Aristotle distinguished natural signs
from conventional signs. Natural signs, for example, would
include symptoms of a disease, a rainbow as a sign of a passing
shower, smoke as a sign of fire, etc.
>Then a natural sign is nothing but knowledge about cause and effect or a sequence of events in time whether a man was there as an arsonist or not. I do not think that the above age long distinction is important.
Conventional signs are agreed by some "minds or quasi-minds"
as Peirce would say. Examples include words and letters of
human languages, but they also include conventions between
humans and their pets.
That also includes conventional signs between non-human animals,
such as warning calls or mating displays. Most such signs
are innate, but some of the higher animals create conventions
among members of the same group. And for that matter, the only
difference between innate and newly created conventions is
whether they are encoded in genes or neurons -- either way,
they are conventional signs.
>FK I guess it is another example of classification for its own sake.
Thank you anyway.
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Two methods to achieve interoperability, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations, FERENC KOVACS|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] Two methods to achieve interoperability, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|