To: | Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Thomas Johnston <tmj44p@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sat, 2 May 2015 19:44:50 +0000 (UTC) |
Message-id: | <939221402.503186.1430595890968.JavaMail.yahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Rich,. An indexical is a sub-sentential _expression_ which varies from one context to another, and which, until resolved in each specific use of a sentence (each token of that sentence), prevents the sentence/token from having a truth value. (Declarative sentences with all indexicals resolved pretty well line up with Quine's notion of "occasion sentences".) Examples:
So, as to my previous point, none of the declarative expressions in quotation marks above are statements because none of them, until dis-ambiguated by assigning a value to its indexicals, has a truth value. None of them says any one definite thing. Lack of (implicit and explicit) Indexicality resolution is a major cause of ambiguity in statements. Note that this is a different matter than ambiguity in concepts, i.e. in sub-sentential expressions. The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on indexicality which, because it's the SEP, I assume is a good one. On Saturday, May 2, 2015 1:06 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas
Johnston
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 9:17 AM To: [ontolog-forum] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10 John,
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?
Tom
On Saturday, May 2, 2015 10:11
AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/ . 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 _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10, Obrst, Leo J. |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10, Thomas Johnston |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10, Obrst, Leo J. |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Watchout Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine Learning - ZDNet-2015.04.10, John F Sowa |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |