Re: Logic As Formal Semiotic -- Discussion

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Story Henry wrote:
> 
> Calling in a Redundancy theory of truth is very misleading.

Yes, I agree.

I didn't pick the name, and don't over all buy this line.
I merely tried to give a moderately close reading of the
main points in Ramsey's argument.

> There is a big difference between "Snow is white" and the
> fact of snow being white. It just looks redundant because
> we are expressing both in language. But it is already very
> different when you look at the same sentence in French
> 
> "La neige est blanche" is true in French iff Snow is white.
> 
> That is saying the same thing, but is not at all redundant.
> 
> This goes further, there is a big difference between
> a sentence quoted and one believed. So I might say:
> 
> Joe believes "Jim kissed Jane" .
> 
> Or in N:
> 
> ---8<--------
> @prefix x: <http://www.gnowsis.org/ont/kissology#> .
> 
> :joe cog:believes { :Jim x:kissed :Jane } .
> ---8<--------
> 
> And believing it
> 
> ---8<--------
> :Jim x:kissed :Jane .
> ---8<--------
> 
> Perhaps the second one was reached because
> I believe a stupid rule such as:
> 
> ---8<--------
> { :joe cog:believes { ?a ?r ?b . } } => { ?a ?r ?b . }
> ---8<--------
> 
> ie I believe whatever I believe joe to believe.
> 
> The second might trigger some serious actions, and many films
> have been made about the predisposition of jealous people to
> jump too quickly from the belief statement to the later one,
> and the situations this leads them to.
> 
> This is because belief and action and so emotions are closely related.
> 
> Anyway, this is far from being redundant.
> 
> Henry

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-User_talk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o