| To: | ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| From: | FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 2010年8月17日 05:28:04 +0000 (GMT) |
| Message-id: | <52947.54588.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
John et al,
In your paper referenced on “the classification of signs, three basic categories are Mark, Token, and Type” you write: “A mark is an uninterpreted sign of any kind”, in other words it is an object that the interpreter does not relate to itself, whether human or machine. So it is simply disregarded, the question whether a friend or a foe is not even asked. As we look for objects in anticipation of what we already know about the world, anything identified as not known (identified) will be termed as “unidentified” in terms of properties already identified.
In my analysis objects may be seen as form and content. If you can recognize a form (pattern), then you give it a name (another form), which may bedifferent by groups of people knowing the same or similar objects. If you cannot recognize it, you can still abstract its properties which will be its content. And you may decide to use that property in naming them. In the classic example of seeing different object made of gold, you will call them golden thingies.
Further to that you write: “a type is a pattern for classifying marks”. In my view type is just a name for a number of similar objects grouped as a set, hence an object of multiple incidences.
Therefore “a token is the result of classifying a mark according to some type” means to me that they are specific or individual memebrs of the former sets Just as you say in your example: “For example, a pattern of green and yellow in the lawn is a mark, which could be interpreted according to the viewer's interests as a token of type Plant, Weed, Flower, SaladGreen, Dandelion, etc.
But in my view “a pattern of green and yellow in the lawn” is just the same as saying that a number of unidentified objects are in an known object. (which is a little exageration, as I am going to explain below): why?
The only difference between these words (noun phrases) used for identification is that they differ in specificity. Every one of them may be placed in a continuum of specific and generic, another dual facets of objects (like form and content), which is not necessarily identical or best represented with a tree structure
Further comments: “A sign may be characterized by the way the mark determines the referent” I am sorry, this is the other way round, it is the interpreter who determines the way to characterize a referent, especially via its capabilities (e.g. senses)
Therefore an intepreter in the analysis (comparison of one stimulus (object) with old expereience and expectations) he/it will find it to be an
“1. Icon: according to some similarity of image, pattern, or structure.”
But not just that, for instance in terms of varying degrees of a property
“2. Index: according to some physical relationship; e.g., immediate presence, pointing to
something remote, or causally indicating something not directly perceptible.”
Indexing is just pointing to something else (locatable in space or time), so it is close to soemthing specific.
“3. Symbol: according to some convention; e.g., spoken words, written words, money, flag, uniform...+
Yes, that is fine, but I should add, that all of the above items are a product of convention, not just your symbols. A symbol is a man made object to stand in for a not man made object, a “surrogate”. But it is not just man made objects that are used that way. Think of a rainbow, etc.
Regards,
ferenc
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations , FERENC KOVACS |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations , Rich Cooper |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Triadic Sign Relations , doug foxvog |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Triadic Sign Relations , John F. Sowa |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |