- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:03:36 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> Connect the reasoner to a camera and such, and it will be able >> to tell people from pebbles, and one person from another by >> face recognition, and so on. I don't see any sharp distinction >> between this and some other concept of reference. > > When it's connected to the camera maybe there will be reference in the > sense we are using. Remind me, what sense is that? Can you give a reference ? :-- I'm still trying to understand the relations between proof theory, model theory, and what people (agents) actually do. For a while I thought there was some connection between 'interpretation' in the model theory sense and 'reference' in the sense of what people do when they refer, but that doesn't seem right at all now. There may be some special situations in which people 'interpret' in the model theory sense but I think these are exceptional. Usually you're happy to talk about things (refer to them) without knowing much about them (or at least I am), which sounds more like theorem proving than interpretation. I'll try to stick to FOL and RDF-MT and ethology, leaving the philosophy of language to those who understand it better than I do. Jonathan > While it's all pebbles it seems different to me. > > -Alan >
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 19:04:12 UTC