Re: [ontac-forum] Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and Truth

["Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am glad to see that John has hereby recognized that he was wrong to 
assert that "objects themselves are hypotheses that might turn out to 
be illusions".    (01)

This:    (02)

>Any perceptible configuration of the universe may be
>interpreted as a sign by someone or something.    (03)

is of course a much weaker claim. Indeed, it is trivially true that 
ANYTHING may be interpreted as a sign by someone or something.    (04)

>JS>> Incoming signals that impinge on our nerve endings are signs.
>
>BS> what are they just before they impinge?
>
>Anything that does not impinge, has not yet impinged, or is
>not capable of affecting our nerve endings is an undetected
>part of the environment.    (05)

Good.
And of course most entities do not change ontologically just because 
they are detected by organisms.    (06)



>As soon as those environmental features are detected by the
>nerves or instruments, they may be called "marks", which are
>the most basic signs.  A mark does not become a token until
>it is interpreted as an instance of some type.    (07)

I think there is a confusion here between what things are called, and 
what things are. Sentence 1 is about the former; sentence 2 involves 
an unfortunate shift to the latter.
BS     (08)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (09)