RE: SUO: Core Meanings and the SUO
>Douglas,
> . Why should what you are saying necessarily be so?
>
> . To me you are addressing the matter that, often, people
>don't precisely define their utterances, with the result that the
>information interpreted doesn't always match that uttered. But, that doesn't
>mean that everyone is as ambiguous as everyone else, nor that ambiguity is
>unavoidable if sufficient care is expended to be precise.
>
> . Leaving out all sorts of issues of freedom for people to
>express themselves as they wish, including as ambiguously as they like, why
>will not the precision of computer languages serve to achieve unambiguity?
>Allowing for the severely restricted vocabulary, if I communicate to you in
>a computer language in which you are literate, surely you will understand
>precisely what I say?
No, you won't. When was the last time you actually READ code, instead
of running it?
BUt theres a deeper misunderstanding here. When you say 'computer
language' do you mean 'programming language' (which is only even
called a 'language' by a kind of extension from normal usage) or do
you mean 'language for expressing meanings which is stored in a
computer' ? There is nothing particularly *computerish* about an
ontology language; or if there is, that aspect of it adds nothing to
its conceptual or ontological clarity or precision.
>
> . If we start from this sort of basis, and I don't care
>whether its using a "CE" or "KIF", then why won't we achieve unambiguous
>communication?
Because KIF and CE only specify the logical framework within which
the ontological meanings are to be expressed, not those meanings
themselves. Not that this is to be sneezed at, I hasten to add; but
it isnt a magical guarantee against misunderstanding.
>
> . I admit, that when it comes to expressing complex and/or
>sophisticated concepts, then the communication will require:
>* prefacing with some assumed structure (eg. possibly the concept that
>anger arises out of fear); and
>* a great deal of elaboration to ensure every aspect is defined.
You should read Quine on the indeterminacy of translation, and then
see if you are still so confident that this 'great deal of
elaboration' is always going to work.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes