Re: SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
Hi Seth, thanks for your reply.
On Tue, 20 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?
>
> I don't know .. you would need to tell me what 'really an interpertation'
> means to you.
Fair question. To me, seeing something as an interpretation involves
some kind of possibility that the interpretation might have gone another
way. So for instance, I interpret a given cloud as looking like the
Sydney Opera House, but others may disagree. If, say, someone meddles with
my brain and plants the idea that the cloud looks like the Sydney Opera
House - this is not a piece of interpretation on my part, this is my being
causally determined.
So my problem with assigning the term 'interpretation' to certain computer
processes is their determinism (as long as nothing is broken, though of
course if it is broken there is no interpretation either, just a big
mess). Perhaps this is a naive John-Searle-ish philosophical take on
interpretation, and I'm open to discussion about it.
> All I'm saying is that if you can take a system that is composed of
> (database + programs) and design it to respond to strings of language signs,
> then the (database + programs) is indeed sitting in the Interpertant slot of
> Pierce's sign relation.
Why? I don't see this. You might argue that the *responses* are 'sitting
in the Interpretant slot', but I don't see why the database + programs are.
> And, if you can stretch you imagination to believe
> that any program is a formalism, then we were 'loath', but we did turn
> Pierce's Interpertant into a formalism.
The true test of the meaning of signs in Peircean terms is how they are
used and your usage just doesn't seem similar enough to me to warrant your
using the same term. Of course this is my interpretation...
> Perhaps it doesn't feel right to you because the Interpretation is then
> subjective to the particular (database + program) and is not some objective,
> mathematically ideal, context insensitive thing.
No, that's not my issue.
> But that's too bad
> .....'what interpretations a particular sign is giving rise to now, and will
> give rise to in the future', *will* 'always remains an open question'
> relative to a particular Interpertant. That *is* an essential nature of one
> of Pierce's sign relations. Is it not?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Why does it have to be so perfect upon release .. why can't you just get it
> out here and let the community muck around with it ?
Seth, I can't speak for Cycorp managers (of which I am not one) and their
decisions. However, I know people *are* working hard on OpenCyc at the
moment.
Regards,
Cathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Legg, Phd Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr., ste 100
www.cyc.com Austin, TX 78731-1615
--------------------------------------------------------------------------