ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:44:18 -0400
Message-id: <500FDC12.5050401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 7/25/2012 7:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
On 7/25/2012 12:45 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
JMcC's point was that there was no single "theory" of contexts; that
contexts are not a natural kind, and a "context" is just anything
that anyone cares to use in a context kind of a way, ie as something
that influences truth values and denotations.
It almost sounds like there are two definitions of "context". One is the perceived setting which may evoke observations based on the level and type of perception. While the other is the brute-force real world set of facts? Is this correct?  And if so, should we have different terms by the type of context we refer to?

JB: My fear is that by not defining a context type we will disparage its use. That would be awkward.

      
I agree with that idea.

my (often repeated) objection that time, for example, and belief,
for example, were very different kinds of thing and influenced
truth in very different kinds of ways...
I also agree with that.

his response was always that the point of a context logic was not
to capture the essence or nature of contexts, but rather to be simply
a general framework for stating inferences which might be influenced
by *any* kind of context.
And I have no objection to that idea.

JFS
"(that p)" is a kind of quasi-quotation that allows
variables in p to be bound to quantifiers outside of p.
PH
Hmm, I don't think it is correct to think of it as quasi-quotation.
Rather than quoting the sentence, it treats it as defining a
zero-ary predicate, and creates a term denoting that entity.
The backquote in LISP can be applied to any _expression_.  The IKL
'that' operator can be implemented in LISP by applying backquote
to sentences in some version of logic.

That is an explanation that is meaningless to anybody who does
not know LISP.  But LISP aficionados like that way of talking.

In any case, I agree that your definition is the proper way
to define 'that' in purely CL or IKL terms.

John
 
_________________________________________________________________
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
 


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2196 / Virus Database: 2437/5153 - Release Date: 07/24/12




_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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