- From: Lynn, James (Software Services) <james.lynn@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:21:11 -0400
- To: <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <public-sw-meaning@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@isr.umd.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:48 PM > To: Graham Klyne > Cc: Thomas B. Passin; public-sw-meaning@w3.org > Subject: Re: Terms and statements (was: consensus and ownership) > > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > At 08:47 16/10/03 -0400, Thomas B. Passin wrote: > Graham Klyne wrote: > This idea of meaning being based in consensus also appears in > the work by > Quine that I mentioned the other week [1]. > A possible difference in position would be that you talk > about the meaning > of a URI, where Quine's analysis suggest that it's not the > individual terms > but complete statements that have meaning. (I think that's a > point that Pat > has been trying to press, too.) > > I think that individual terms _do_ have meaning for people. > > So what? I mean, you may think that, it may be useful to > think that (e.g., in > teaching language), but its a very hard thing (impossible, > according to > many!) to establish. > > Oh wait, I was reading you a bit too strongly. see below. > > For example, the word "gravity" certainly has meaning for > me. It may well > be that my sense of its meaning comes mainly from a large > collection of > statments that I have heard or uttered in the past - along > with personal > experience - but nevertheless the term itself carries meaning for me. > > You may associate meaning with the term but what *gives* it > is meaning? > In other words, in what *makes* have the meaning it does? Also, the > Quinian notion is more that statements (or sets of > statements) are the > *primary* fonts of meaning. That's compatible with terms > having meaning. > > Of course, this is in tension (surface tension, at least) with the > compositional theory of meaning, i.e., for truth functional > logic that the > truth of the statement is a function of the truth of its components. I'm a little confused about the connection between truth and meaning, at least as it pertains to terms, by themselves or as components of a statement; or maybe this is your point. As a simple, perhaps trivial example in first order logic, consider a constant c which refers to some object. What is the meaning of c? Is the meaning of c ambiguous? How is a URI different from a constant? What is the truth value of c? In my way of thinking, the truth doesn't become a consideration for c until the application of a relation to c. Meaning, on the other hand, can be said to be the witnessing of an object by c. Does this make sense or have I missed the point here? Thanks, James > However, I think this is a blushing herring. Holism and > consensus focus are > somewhat distinct. > > So, while I agree that consensus based meaning, in some > sense, is present > in some of Quine's work, I don't agree that his Holism (or > *just* holism) > requires consensus or perhaps even uses consensus. (For example, > sentences telling me that I'm wrong in my use of a term > needn't have my > assent, or even lack of opposistion.) > > [snip] > > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia. > >
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 15:21:37 UTC