I did not mean to blame you, just wondered. So we have all that to be said
semiotics and smantics now broadened enough to cover not just 2000 year old
philosophy of grammar or Wittgenstein whom I respect myself, but who has not
been clever enough to put his ideas in a proper sequence so he used a notation
of numbered passages, just like the originators of psalms also cited elsewhere. (01)
Thus we are still left with the job of defining meaning to cover all its
pragmatic aspects as well so that we can see what others speak about. (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Oooh, FOL is too hard to learn.
> On 10/19/2010 7:46 AM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>> Or why John Sowa believes that semantics covers just what he likes it
>> to be defined in formal logic? Why semiotics is forgotten about not to
>> to mention many other ways of communication which all carry meaning?
>> Like what abot spatial semantics, biosemiotics, etc?
> This thread started with issues related to the Semantic Web and related
> computational systems. I made the point that many programmers avoid
> learning logic because it is too hard. Instead, they invent very
> limited subsets of logic, which don't interoperate smoothly with
> other subsets. Then somebody extracted one part of one of my
> comments and created a new thread.
> Re semiotics: I love to talk about semiotics and biosemiotics.
> But that was not the topic from which this thread began. As Peirce
> said, formal logic is one part of a more general study about how
> any system of signs expresses information about any subject of
> any kind. It is one part of the much more general theory of
> As Saussure said, linguistics is also one part of the much
> more general theory of signs. And all communication in general
> is one part of the much more general theory of signs.
> And every living organism responds to signs from the environment,
> including other organisms, and every aspect of its response creates
> signs that can be interpreted by other organisms. That includes
> all animal signs (zoosemiotics) and plant signs (phytosemiotics).
> It goes all the way down to bacterial colonies that communicate
> by generating and interpreting signs.
> In fact all larger organisms are highly organized colonies of
> single cells that communicate via chemical, electrical, and
> tactile signs. The neural systems of animals are designed for
> high-speed long-distance communication throughout the body,
> especially to that huge colony of neurons called the brain.
> But none of these topics were included in the original thread
> from which this subthread was extracted. That is why they
> weren't mentioned in the previous discussion.
> But if you are interested in how I would relate semiotics
> to language and logic, following is a paper I wrote on that
> The Role of Logic and Ontology in Language and Reasoning
> Note that it doesn't mention semiotics in the title, but the
> heading for the second section is:
> 2. A Semiotic Foundation for Ontology
> In any case, I have to leave on a short trip, and I probably
> won't have time to respond to further points during the next
> few days.
> 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
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 (04)