Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

[PeteOlcott]

THING is not a meaningless string,, it is the root of the tree of Analytical_Knowledge.

^^^^ THAT is all gibberish. You said that the meaning of "thing" is....

stipulated by its relation to other finite strings.

So is it stipulated by its relations to other strings; or is its meaning stipulated by its English definition?

Make up your mind.

Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.

I have been referring to relations between finite strings because it is easier for the human
mind to comprehend that a natural language word is defined using other natural language words.

[Skepdick]

Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.

Fine. Let the GUID of {THING} be 0.

What does that mean?

[PeteOlcott]

Natural language is formalized such that GUIDs are place holders for the unique sense
meanings of natural language words.

Fine. Let the GUID of {THING} be 0.

What does that mean?

It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.

[Skepdick]

It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.

So lets suppose (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 1 and {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 2.

What do (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} mean?

Also, what does {MEANING} mean?

[PeteOlcott]

It means that the direct graph nodes having the GUIDs of (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING}
can define their direct paths to {THING}.

So lets suppose (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 1 and {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} has GUID 2.

What do (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} mean ?

The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.

[Skepdick]

The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.

So {THING} is defined by its subtypes? OK...

What's {MEANING} defined by?

[PeteOlcott]

The way that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates work is that
the only meaning that is encoded is the relations to other meanings, thus at this
point (PHYSICALLY_EXISTING} AND {CONCEPTUALLY_EXISTING} are merely sub-types
of {THING} and nothing more.

So {THING} is defined by its subtypes? OK...

What's {MEANING} defined by?

Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.

[Skepdick]

Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.

I am asking you to relate {MEANING} to other finite strings.

While you are at it, also relate {SEMANTICS}

[PeteOlcott]

Only the directed paths in the acyclic graph.

I am asking you to relate {MEANING} to other finite strings.

While you are at it, also relate {SEMANTICS}

Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.

When we think of this as the semantic meaning finite string words being comprised
entirely of their definition using other finite string words then this then this becomes
much easier to understand.

Then we elaborate on this basis and say that these definitions are not specified in
English, instead they have their own formal language that is carefully optimized for
machine processing, that still uses the English word finite strings as their basis.

"I am going to the store"
becomes something like:
Event Transport(What:Self, From:Here, Destination:Retail-Location, When:Now).

It can be understood that such a system would create the actual equivalent of human
comprehension for its knowledge domain because it can be understood how questions
about this domain could be answered.

All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

[Skepdick]

Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.

Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.

All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

How about you encode {COMPREHENSION} in your system also.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.

[PeteOlcott]

Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.

Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.

All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

How about you encode {COMPREHENSION} in your system also.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.

In the short run it will mean that the machine can answer questions about its subject domain.
In the longer run it will mean that it can accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
In the longest run it will do the above two and be utterly indistinguishable from a human mind.

[PeteOlcott]

Every aspect of all semantic meaning that is encoded in this system is encoded
entirely as the directed paths of a directed graph.

Yes. I get that. Which is why I am asking you to encode {MEANING} in your system.

All that it would take to provide generic human level of comprehension is sufficiently
populating the knowledge domain using this same kind of formalism.

How about you encode {COMPREHENSION} in your system also.

Explain to your computer what it means to comprehend.

Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?
Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.

[Skepdick]

In the short run it will mean that the machine can answer questions about its subject domain.
In the longer run it will mean that it can accomplish anything that a human mind can accomplish.
In the longest run it will do the above two and be utterly indistinguishable from a human mind.

You are dodging the question. I am not looking for verbiage, I am looking for an encoding of the semantics of {MEANING} and {COMPREHENSION} in your proposed system.

[Skepdick]

Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?

The computer doesn't speak English. It's the very task at hand: Use Prolog to teach the computer how to comprehend English.

Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.

Don't explain it to me in English. Explain it to your computer in Prolog.

[PeteOlcott]

Talking to the computer:
What does it mean to comprehend ?

The computer doesn't speak English. It's the very task at hand: Use Prolog to teach the computer how to comprehend English.

Comprehension means that correct questions within my subject domain of knowledge can be answered correctly.

Internally (after natural language translation into Prolog) this means that Prolog Queries are successful.

Don't explain it to me in English. Explain it to your computer in Prolog.

Comprehension means successful queries. I am not focusing on the rat's nest of complexity
of translating between natural language and the internal structure, I am only focusing on
the internal structure. The English word "comprehension" will probably mean gibberish
in the system for quite a while.