Re: SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
Hi Seth,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Seth Russell wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Well yes if we consider only human minds. But computers are quite different
> ... we can put a diagram of their interpertation of some predicament inside
> their databases and then contrive with programs that they behave according
> to their master's interpretation of that diagram :)
In what sense is this really an interpretation, though?
> > Apologies if I am missing something.
>
> Not at all ... it's quite a privilege to finally exchange words with someone
> from CycCorp. When are we to get the new open cyc modules ?
Unfortunately the exact date when OpenCyc will emerge is yet to be
decided. However I can assure you that selected Cycorp employees are
currently working hard on it.
I haven't had a chance to look at your further diagrams, but I will...
Regards,
Cathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
--------------------------------------------------------------------------