From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:57:58 EST 1992
Article 4657 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
References: <1992Mar21.183203.21183@oracorp.com>
Message-ID: <1992Mar22.211241.4341@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 92 21:12:41 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <1992Mar21.183203.21183@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>> Daryl,
>
>
>> Do you think that humans could possibly have a different kind of semantics? 
>> Must semantics be limited in some way such that the term 'semantic' can
>> only refer to one particular quality?
>
>I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you are asking whether
>the word "semantics" can mean different things, the answer is yes; I'm
>not picky about words having unique meanings--I only ask that the
>meaning be made clear if it is going to figure prominently in an
>argument. What kind of semantics do you have in mind?

 Well, I don't know what kind of other semantics I have in mind.  I just
wonder if semantics could have a degree quality to them.  Like strength,
there are some things that are stronger than others.  I wonder if sometimes
reference and sense(sinn and bedeutung) might also be thought of in terms
of the degree to which they refer.  That is the accuracy, the unmistakability,
and other, what might be, interesting psychological aspects.  But, beyond
this, I have no idea as to how or why.  I was just curious as to what you
thought about this.  BTW, I realize that we can already
say that some words clearly mean x while other words only vaguely convey y.
By this degree, I wonder if a system that uses semantics might utilize
these in a unique and distinguishable way.so that the system may only
be capable of being vague or being specific, etc.


BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III


>Daryl McCullough

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu



"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


