Jon Awbrey schrieb:
> IJ: The correspondence theory of truth is not semantically mystical.
>
> Ingvar,
>
> Of course it makes good sense to say what you said.
>
> >From the epistemological stance of everyday life and the semantics
> of ordinary language, it makes good sense for me to say that what
> I see outside my window where I am at the moment corresponds to
> what has been said when I say, "the sun rose this morning".
>
> But what it means to say, "the sun rose this morning", is a thing
> that can take several thousand years of human scientific inquiry
> to clarify just what it means for a given application, context,
> intent, or objective.
>
> And what we have been talking about here is part of a project that
> began some 50 odd years ago, just since I've been paying attention,
> that is trying to bring machines with absolutely zero innate sense
> of our everyday life and our ordinary language into a condition of --
> not just confluence with but -- enlightening interaction with them.
>
> I think that will take a little more work on our parts ...
>  (01) 
Sure. But there is no need for you to start to discuss whether the 
correspondence theory of truth is semantically meaningful or not.  (02)
Ingvar  (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (04)