Re: SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
>
> [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/intensionExtension.gif
>
> In other words, ~cats~ are just a figment of the computer's imagination,
> we'll never find ~cats~ in reality. So if we want to talk about ~cats~, we
> had better look into the computer's imagination.
>
> See I must admit that I have an agenda here too ... hopefully such personal
> agendas are allowable when opening these sign inter-coms. So, just as
> hopefully, you will recognize that were my agenda to be swept away as
> unimportant, then I am not likely to hang in there on my end of the line.
Seth I had a look at your diagram, but I am not sure what aim it is
serving. Could you perhaps illustrate this with a use of the diagram to
explicate a particular concrete example of sign-usage?
In general I would be loath to take Peirce's concept of the interpretant
of a sign and turn it into an explicit piece of formalism (which then
would require its own interpretation). As I understand it, what
interpretations a particular sign is giving rise to now, and will give
rise to in the future, always remains an open question, and thus cannot
be formalised. (Messy, I know).
Apologies if I am missing something.
Cathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
--------------------------------------------------------------------------