Re: [ontolog-forum] English number of words/concepts that cannot be comp

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:26 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SEZ

> A minimum core set of ideas has little to do with language and
> has much more to do with mathematics.

I strongly agree that we need to distinguish the formal ideas
(logical and mathematical) from the content (the subject matter).

SEZ

> It's not that words hold any intrinsic "meaning," it is that words
> produce a range of biophysical behaviors. It is these behaviors, and
> by them their "grounding," that may rightly be described as "meaning."

I agree, but I prefer Peirce's phrase "perception and action" to
"biophysical behavior".  Consider a medical ontology for physicians,
nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators (managers & staff),
accounting, insurance companies, building & grounds personnel,
first responders, and patients.

All those people have to communicate, but they associate different
perceptions and actions with each term.  And they may use different
words in different syntactic patterns for the same referents.

I don't disagree with this equivalence or the pragmatics involved. 

In your "ontological" terms I'm sure that Peirce's assertion about meaning and individuals is appropriate; i.e., all definitions should be attributed and never detached from their author.

Regards,

Steven 

_________________________________________________________________
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)