On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lukasz, > > Thanks! > > To me, your "logical semantics" and "linguistic semantics" correspond > to "meaning of concepts" and "meaning of words", respectively, and the > latter is a subset of the former, as far as an individual is > concerned. > Now I think that my short description was wrong, I don't intend this reading but I'm "a bit" lost right now.
Words are empirically evident, while some (e.g. see the beginning of the "Double R Grammar" paper) deny the existence of concepts (for some psychological or psycholinguistic theory of what concepts are). Linguists study languages, which are easier for empirical exploration and systematization than the "mind". (And linguists do also use introspection, introspection is an empirical method I think.) > Some random comments on the Multinet material: > > *. Principal requirements for a KRS > -- completeness: it is easy to show that a KRS is incomplete, but hard > (if possible) to show/prove it is complete. Only some approximation to completeness is required. > *. CD theory: Though the idea in very intuitive, it is fundamentally > wrong, for two major reasons: > (1) Unlike the situation of chemistry, where everything can be > analyzed as compound formed by 100+ chemical elements, meaning of a > concept/word cannot be reduced into "semantic primitives". Though we > can use simpler concepts to define complicated ones, such a definition > never capture the full meaning of the latter, but can only approximate > it to various degrees. This critique is agreed upon and accounted for by Multinet. > (2) The meaning of a concept/word is not a constant, but a variable. > Of course, any description of it will be constant, but it is just a > "snapshot" taken as a moment, and the semantic theory must allow > meaning to change, rather than attempt to specify the "real" or "true" > meaning, or to converge to such an "attractor". > The QAS of Multinet should do better at accounting for change, and should be _more than a QAS_ to provide the use-theoretic semantics they are aiming at. The meaning in Multinet can change: a multinet can change, the "restrictive knowledge" limits the amount of allowed change. > *. KB and the world: still depends on Tarskian semantics, with KR > aiming at to describe the world "as it is". > No, Multinet is very critical about model-theoretic (or truth-theoretic) semantics. It has the division into "intensional level" which doesn't refer to "the outside world", and "pre-extensional level", which I think can also have internalized reading (the world objects as they are meant). (We need balance of course, it is useful to know the world as it is. I might add, it is also useful to know the world as it should be...) ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
