I think Thomas is thinking of indexicals as indexes (contextual indices) that fix a statement (proposition?) in a particular set of possible worlds.
But I might be mistaken.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 1:06 PM
To: 'Thomas Johnston'; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10
Thomas and John,
Please define the word "indexicality" as you are using it. I think you mean the binding between FOL variables and their substituted constants but the term itself
is not used much in engineering AFAIK.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
The classical definition of a statement, as I understand it, is that it is a declarative sentence with all indexicals resolved. So, as a statement,
a fluent is a statement schema such that resolving its temporal indexical produces a statement. (If we move on to propositions, we get into some deep issues, such as whether or not any propositions can change their truth values over time.) In other words,
a fluent is a family of statements all identical except for the point or period of time associated with them.
Sounds like an interesting concept. More generally, we can conceive of a statement-family as a statement schema in which one or more indexicals
are not resolved -- place, time, person, perhaps even propositional attitude.
Are such statement families worth reifying? Or is it enough simply to understand that many apparent statements are not statements because of
indexicality?
Rich and Tom,
RC
> I think you are describing what is best represented as fluents in the
> table. A "fluent" row comprises the predicate's specified value of
> true or false, and its parametric bindings to objects and properties.
TJ
> Which suggests that I must currently fail to understand what you mean
> by "fluents". Can you enlighten me?
The term 'fluent' was introduced by John McCarthy and Pat Hayes in the
classic paper "Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of AI":
JMC & PJH (1969)
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/mcchay69.pdf
> A fluent is a function whose domain is the space Sit of situations.
For example, the sentence "It is raining" is a _propositional fluent_.
For any situation in which it is raining, that fluent has value true.
Another fluent is the phrase 'the president', which depends on the
organization and the time. For the situation of the USA at this moment,
the value of that fluent is a human named Barack Obama.
The term 'fluent' is a useful generic for many terms that have the
modifier 'context dependent'. For related documents, search for the
word 'context' in http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl/
.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|