On Tuesday 16 October 2007 09:24:34 am, Richard Loosemore wrote: > If I may interject: a lot of confusion in this field occurs when the > term "semantics" is introduced in a way that implies that it has a clear > meaning [sic].
"Semantics" does have a clear meaning, particularly in linguistics and computer science. In programming language theory, it has a very precise and formal meaning (example: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/%7Ejacobm/pubs/scheme-semantics.pdf) with deep underpinnings in logic and math. There are, of course, many hangers-on to AI who haven't done their homework, and thus are confused about its meaning. > I start to wonder what they're > putting on their cornflakes in the morning. Cornflakes are bad for you, consisting entirely of carbohydrates. > The trivial sense of > "semantics" don't apply, and the deeper senses are so vague that they > are almost synonymous with grounding. Completely wrong. Grounding is a fairly shallow concept that falls apart as an explanation of meaning under fairly moderate scrutiny. Semantics is, by definition, "whatever it takes" to understand meaning. Josh ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=54101333-25b187
