On 7/25/2012 12:44 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Contexts are objects. For more on this, see my paper on
> 'contexts in context' at the AAAI context symposium, visible at
> http://bit.ly/N2yGYa . But they key point is that there are not
> two or even twenty-two 'kinds' of context, but that being a context
> is more like a status or role than an ontological type. ANYTHING
> can be a 'context' in the right, um, context. (01)
I agree. But why do you keep your paper on that proprietary Google
docs site? It's much easier to read or download in PDF format. (02)
> If you want to think about how time influences meaning, think about
> temporal logics. If you want to think about how beliefs influence
> meaning, think about epistemic logics. If you want to think about
> fiction, study literary theory. But don't think that by calling
> all these (and so many other things) all "contexts" that you have
> thereby achieved any kind of insight or clarity. All you have done
> is get time and belief and fiction muddled, ie created confusion. (03)
I agree with those observations. Words like 'meaning', 'context',
and many others have an open-ended number of word senses. Adopting
any of them as a technical term can only capture a tiny fraction
of their informal meaning. (04)
For other examples, look at common words that have been made into
technical words in physics: force, energy, mass, power... (05)
What's the power of the presidency in megawatts? What's the mass
of the mass market? What's the force of the argument in dynes? (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|