From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!iccdev!gwinnett!depsych!rc Tue Nov 19 11:09:58 EST 1991
Article 1303 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!iccdev!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Semantics in Semantic Networks
Message-ID: <2VqcBB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 13 Nov 91 13:20:00 GMT
References: <1991Nov12.190138.2729@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Lines: 25

mc703@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> For what it's worth I agree entirely about precise semantic models; I think
> Tarskian truth-conditional semantics and its descendents (cf the Davidson of
> "Radical Interpretation" etc) are overvalued.  Frege, I submit, never intende
> his formal logic to be used for a theory of meaning for natural language - it
> was Russell who started the rot :-).  There are good reasons why logic is a b
> tool for the job, and the result is that we are nowhere near a "theory of
> meaning" either in philosophy or in AI.  The Wittgenstein of the Philosophisc
> Untersuchungen is a lot more interesting in my opinion - a theory of language
> without truth-conditional semantics.

Wouldn't a "structuralist" perspective (based on Saussure) be more
natural to semantic networks than an "analytical" one (based on
Russell)?

Did your respondents perceive themselves as doing semiotics or
anything like semiotics?

What programming languages are used to create semantic networks?

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.com
Midtown Medical Center |    gatech!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


