EM patch 75.1#73
Open
emmoramor wants to merge 12 commits into
Open
Conversation
Project_1tr 3.0
Project #2_tr
EM Project#3_tf
johnbeve
requested changes
Apr 25, 2023
|
|
||
| The first thing to note is that there is a great degree of ambiguity in how this expression ought to be interpreted, with interpreting being a pre-requisite for modeling it. (One could write a story or novel with this much ambiguity...) | ||
|
|
||
| 'Sally' could be a person, or a robot, or a computer program (or something else). When dealing with such ambiguous expressions in natural language, we should, I think, consider at least three levels of semantic determinacy (as well as their respective associated risks): (1) natural language writ-large, (2) ordinary-use language, and (3) common sense use. An example/definition of (1) is natural human language that is definable in relation to all forms of human language, so this level entails the most inherent ambiguity and interpretative risks. With the main risk here being that we'll be told the expression means something else than we thought. |
Owner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Liking what I'm reading so far...
|
|
||
| Ordinarily, that would seem fine. We could put aside whether Tuesday and Wednesday are references to days of the week, but even in ordinary uses of languages Tuesday and Wednesday could be proper names. (Think, e.g., Wednesday Addams. Maybe she has a cousin named Tuesday...?) Tuesday and Wednesday could also be the names of Sally's dogs. Under an open-world assumption, none of this possibilities could be ruled out right away. The dog names possibility, however, doesn't quite work without the preposition 'on.' So, we are back to Sally having an arm on one day, but not on the other. (Notice, interestingly, that the preposition 'on' could be in this expression even if we are referring to days of the week, but isn't.) Back to the logical ambiguity at play in the expression, one may note that Sally could be a person that only has one arm; the cause doesn't much matter. It would be true that Sally is an one-arm person in both instances asserted in the expression: Sally would have an arm on Tuesday, because Sally doesn't have two arms; and, by the same logic, it would be true that Sally does not have an arm on Wednesday if she only has one arm (and doesn't have two arms), because the expression is referring to the arm that Sally is missing on Wednesday, and referring to the arm that she is not missing on Tuesday. | ||
|
|
||
| Even with ordinary language use, there is still another ambiguity inherent in the expression. Namely, how one goes about defining 'has.' There are at least three relevant layers of meaning possible here. Sally the arms-dealer *has* arms that she sells for profit. Sally the person who is missing an arm *has* one arm that came attached with her phsyical body. This same Sally might have a prosthetic arm that she puts on and takes off at will, so perhaps the expression could be interpreted to be referring to her taking on the prosthetic arm from one day to the next. (She could also be missing both arms, and the expression refers to the one prosthetic arm she got from her insurance.) She would still own the prosthetic arm, but not 'have' it with her or on her, when she takes the arm off, on Wednesdays, for whatever reason. Sally could also be a mannequin at the local retail store... (again, one could write a novel with so much ambiguity...) |
Owner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very extensive, enjoyable read :)
|
|
||
| (d) An organization may have no members as part. | ||
|
|
||
| True and False. Again, this answer hinges on how on defines 'organization.' The 'perspectivalism' we read about a few weeks back seems to be useful here. So, for example, take the debate team of a college. The debate team is an organization. If (a) one defines organization relative to the entity being recognized by another entity/organization for its role, the debate club will exist even if it has no members as part provided that it continues to be recognized by the college according to its role. If, however, (b) one defines organization relative to the performance of some activity then it might make sense to view the debate team as an object aggregate, then without members as part the debate team there would be no activity performed, for it would have no performers, and therefore the object aggregate would not exist. So, according to (a) the debate team, grounded in institutional recognition of its role, may exist even while having no members as part. The answer according to (a) is, therefore, true. According to (b), however, the answer is false. If the debate club is viewed as an object aggregate because as object aggregate is the sum of its parts, it loses its necessary parts to being an object aggregate by virtue of having no members as pars. |
Owner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Strictly, we allow for organizations to have no members assuming they at some point had members. Nevertheless, excellent conceptual analysis.
Collaborator
Author
|
Dear Professor Beverley, I've addressed your comments and made some edits. Thanks very much for your feedback! Best, |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.