Philosophy of language

At the outset an addition to the requirements of a formal system
Interfaces to other Formal Systems
This in particular means that Formal Systems cater to the needs of non specialists in one area to have a reasonable understanding of another. The system enables mapping of domain specific terms and so on.

With the usual caveats we take a look at Philosophy of language. This is more an attempt at structuring available information and if it interests you further please take a look at umpteen sources. My recommendations for a beginning would be
1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

2.1 An organised body of knowledge
Philosophers have relied on others like linguists , grammarians and lately the so called cognitive scientists for organising the knowledge base. The knowledge base is the set of all past, present and future utterances - written or spoken in all languages. The organisation comes mostly from linguists and grammarians ( the latter are sometimes considered as linguists).
An example of how other sources of knowledge are also used.
"Scientists also made advances in describing cognitive functions like speech production and comprehension as natural phenomena, including the discovery of Broca's area and Wernicke's area, two neural centers of linguistic activity, in the 1860s and 70s. "
Lately linguists also use Corpora or a body of selected writings or speech for study and analysis. We also bear in mind that Philosophy traditionally has been more in the nature of an enquiry into areas not amenable to empirical verification and at the largest level of abstraction bordering on speculation, generally using or refining knowledge gained by other specialists to further the enquiry. Some of the early philosophers (and some even in this century )were men of many parts and a simple categorization would not be appropriate.

2.2 Domain specific terms and semantics
denotation:-
Object that a word refers to.e.g The word 'crow' refers to the bird crow.

connotation:-
Other objects or feelings/thought that a word evokes. 'crow ' evokes an eeky feeling and one of unpleasant noise as in crowing

Ambiguity:
Same word having distinctly different meanings. Bank can be the bank of America or the bank of Nile (river). Also referred to as polysemy.

vagueness:
Loosely there is no polysemy but the same word used for distinct members of same general category(or in my opinion underspecification). For example horse can be 'mare' (female horse) or stallion (male horse). Another example flying in the literature 'bald' .How many hairs counts for bald?

context:
"A context is a location--time, place, and possible world--where a sentence is said. It has countless features, determined by the character of the location"-Lewis

Referential Theories of Meaning:
A word denotes something by standing for it . nouns-objects.verbs-acts. The word 'crow' stands for the bird crow. 'play' denotes an act of playing.

Logical Positivists:
View language as meaningful only if it is logical. Any thing that cannot be expressed in logic to them was meaningless. They concluded that logical proofs were true in virtue of internal relations among their propositions, not by virtue of any actual facts about the world.

sense/intension:
One aspect of semantics the other being reference. Crudely one of a potential set of meanings.

reference/extension:
One aspect of semantics the other being sense. The same as denotation once sense is fixed.

singular definite descriptions:
Complex expressions that purport to single out a particular referent by description, for example, "the President of the USA," "the tallest person in this room right now."

Syntax:
The rules and structures governing the recombination of words and phrases into sentences.

Tarski's Theory of Truth:
expresses truth in terms of syntax and set theory.

Tarski's Theory of Truth:Object language:
Language that is target for analysis.

Tarski's Theory of Truth:Meta language :
is the language that we use to study object language.

Tarski's Theory of Truth:
"A sentence is true if it is satisfied by all objects and false otherwise."

Empirical reductionism:
The view that each sentence or expression could be assigned its own distinctive slice of empirical content from our experience.

Illocutionary intentions:
Those intentions whose success is entirely a matter of getting a hearer's recognition of the actual intention itself are called illocutionary intentions. In discourse theory.

Perlocutionary intention:
those intentions whose success is entirely a matter of getting the hearer to do something (above and beyond understanding the semantic content of what is said) are called perlocutionary intention. In discourse theory.

Conventional implicatures:
are those assigned to utterances based on the conventional meanings of the words used, though not in the ways familiar from ordinary logical entailments. For instance: 'Alice is a Britney spears fan, but she doesn't stay in the U.S.' implies the idea that fans should stay in the U.S. in view of the word 'but' .

2.3 Procedures for working with/on knowledge:
Formal logic, First order logic, modal logic are the standard tools for semantics and reasoning. More of this in next post on 'Analytical Philosophy'.

2.4 A set of needs the system addresses:
These are all on the basis of a little thought as to potential users and their needs. Available only here.
potential customers and needs
1.All Formal communication speakers/writers
a.constitutional and legal domain. constitution in written form is a formal communication as are all laws.need-no ambiguity. no underspecification. context identified.
b.All corporate systems,policies,and other communications. Needs as in a.
c.Individuals needing to communicate. Needs as in a.
d.All situations needing the use of FormalSytems
sports,institutions,standards..

2.5 A set of goals the system aims to meet:
Some questions may or may not be there in other places.
what is the nature and use of language?
Is brevity or verbosity the charachteristic of languages?
Is language the "medium of conceptualization" ?
what is word meaning?
Does meaning depend on use?
Do words stand for sets of sense impressions.?
What is the sentence meaning?
Is language adequate to represent all conceptualizations, feelings and everything in the mind?
What is the relation of word and sentence meaning?
What are necessary and sufficient conditions for meaning?
should connotation be or denotation be considered the word meaning?
how is language used ?
for what purposes is language used?
If connotation is also included in word/sentence meaning how many interpretations and correct one?
What are the benefits , if any of connotation included meaning , in formal Systems e.g context packed-forest representation?
translatability of one utterance to another?
what presuppositions exist in conversations?
...

2.6 Limitations of the system
referential Theories of Meaning:
fail to explain the possibility of non-referring terms and negative existential sentences.
All existing theories of meaning use Formal Logic for semantics and implicitly remove connotative meaning. More of this in next post 'Analytical Philosophy'

2.7 Interfaces to Other Formal Systems
As of now it appears informal with philosophers participating in other endeavours and the other way round.

Remarks:
1.The role of domain information in Word Sense Disambiguation is known to natural language processing community. Context as given above enables a generalisation. Perhaps one could view disambiguation as locating the word in context space of which domain is one dimension.

2. Vagueness or Underspecification as I would prefer to call it seems to pervade all phrase categories or the whole language itself ( Any given language - We are referring to natural languages ) But this so called vagueness doesn't seem to bother most people. As I said before 'bald' as an example of vague word is quite frequent in philosophers discussions. But I am yet to hear such a complaint or characterization in common discourse.

3. The semantics as developed till now in the philosophical literature appears to be based on the denotative meaning only. If natural language processing by computers is a goal this restricts the domain of application.

PhilosophyAgenda

1.Recap

Let me recap what I am trying to say in these blogs, in the light of informal comments that it is rather unintelligible.



Except when one is playing solitaire of sorts or when when he/she is fooling around with others he/she is playing a formal game or is in a situation needing the notion of a Formal system.



As a matter of fact as I am writing this blog, I am playing a formal game and I leave it to the reader to figure out the rules of the game.



You might say blogging is about ranting and raving not serious thinking. In that case stuff like if x = blogging implies ranting (proposition that )

y = ranting is not serious .

z = blogging is not serious.

x
y
--
z

should be taboo in a blog.

Our friends in philosophy and those familiar with elementary logic will claim that propositions x and y imply z or that z can be deduced from x and y (Others might not).

This is a formal logic way of saying blogging is not serious because blogging is ranting.

Now you might say that feels too much to gulp. Well if you felt that way you are in right company.

We are led by tradition to believe that it is the only way to do business (of reasoning)

Formal Logic I claim is not the only way to do business. More of it in another post.

Well, all I am saying is that I am writing this blog to advocate agreement on the rules of the game before we start playing. I guess several will know all the rules of all the games. Great! we'll see how far the know it alls are true.

Some of you who might be familiar with standards like ISO9000 will recognise that FormalSystem borrows (or copies if you are uncharitable) from such standards.

To the extent that I am trying to sell you the notion of Formal system I have to use Communication Act Theory instead of Speech Act Theory.

We'll take a look 'Communication Act Theory' at this in another post.

In this post I am advocating a new way of doing philosophy by casting it in the mold of a FormalSystem.

Summary of Recap

Whenever two or more minds interact to accomplish a shared goal FormalSystem is the way to go.

Aside: when I started this blog I knew that model building or Theory building is an abstraction
and that all abstraction strips some content. But I hadn't known what Whitehead had said on the
subject.

Alfred North Whitehead, Modes of Thought:

"The topic of every science is an abstraction from the full concrete happenings of nature. But
every abstraction neglects the influx of the factors omitted into the factors retained."

Question: Does thinking have anything with to do with language?

we'll take a look at this in another post.

2.Philosophy as a FormalSystem

At the outset let me clarify that of necessity this is more in the nature of exploring a new path
than that it is an express highway (Formal logic claims it is).

we examine each of the requirements of a FormalSystem

2.1 An organised body of knowledge

Philosophers thrive on knowledge gathered from other sources and of course loads of common sense and a good dose of 'critical analysis'. There is no lack body of knowledge.

Is it well organised?we will look at this as we look at the fine print.

2.2 Domain specific terms and semantics

Lots of confusion in this area in spite of a century of analytical philosophy.
2.3 Procedures for working with/on knowledge

The only accepted and well known method is Formal logic and a set of Fallacies to be avoided.
There are other methods in the writings of individual philosophers, But there is no comprehensive list which says this is the most upto date list of methods which students,thinkers and professionals can employ to further the goals(what are these?). You apprentice to the various
philosophers and do your bit.

To me the present state is rather medieval.

2.4 A set of needs the system addresses

This does not seem to be stated explicitly or even acknowledged as being relevant to the enterprise (of philosophy).

As far as I am concerned the entire humanity is a customer of the enterprise and we should strive to meet the customer needs, especially in Areas where other human endeavours (science for example) cannot fulfill the customer needs.

What's all this stuff about customers needs?

Philosophy is not a commercial outfit.True. But one's place in society depends on how useful he/she is to the community. If you are not sensitive to the needs of the community, How can you be useful to others?(assuming your activities are also to help the community apart from any intellectual satisfaction)

More on the needs in specific domains of philosophy in subsequent posts.

2.5 A set of goals the system aims to meet

In general the goal of the philosophy enterprise from my point of view should be to -Increase the societal value ( value in the sense of money, GDP, feel good,quality of
life..)

• By developing a well knit (in the sense of understanding the interrelations ships) body of
  knowledge integrating all human knowledge.
• By making the implicit explicit in the sense of questioning belief system ( standard practice)
• By building knowledge bases, models and theories to address the needs.

Now if that sounds vague here's an example. Recall the question 'Does thinking have anything with to do with language?

'Let us suppose that answer is a no. and this comes as a majority vote from philosopher community.

We will further assume that the philosopher community is as influential as say the Medical
council, bar council,Engineering council..If the proposition 'thinking has nothing with to do with language' is regarded as true by appeal to Authority (of the philosopher community) then needless quarrels of language chauvinists everywhere can be settled leading to a better society.

You might say no this is not for philosophers this is for cognitive science.

I would rate it as secondary evidence -the cognitive science approaches.

You might say How can the contribution of one community be assessed?Some clever statistician could probably come out with an appropriate multi factorial design of experiments.

More on the goals in specific domains of philosophy in subsequent posts.

2.6 Limitations of the system If your problem's are getting solved elsewhere to your satisfaction those are not in the domain of philosophy. When all else fails take a look here.

More on this at appropriate places.

technorati

Technorati Profile

What do I mean by Formal Systems

As I said before there is an implicit understanding of a formal system as something equivalent to formal logic. Here are a few of the results of search for "formal system".



"also called logistic system in logic and mathematics, abstract, theoretical organization of terms and implicit relationships that is used as a tool for the analysis of the concept of deduction. Models—structures that interpret the symbols of a formal system—are often used in conjunction with formal systems. "
"A formal system is like a game in which tokens are manipulated according to rules in order to see what configurations can be obtained. (Examples: chess, checkers, go, tic-tac-toe. Nonexamples: marbles, billiards, baseball). All formal games have three essential features: They are token manipulation games; they are digital; and they are finitely playable."



A first glance it might appear as though they are something different , but at the core they are formal logic or the use of formal logic.



To me a formal system is a body of organised(organised in what way is domain dependent) knowledge, procedures (for what?..domain dependent), domain specific terms and semantics, applicability (or limitations)..

The concern for formal logic seems to stem from the need to have a thorough scrutiny of systems or parts. e.g program-provers in computer science to ensure the program will function correctly in all set of conditions. These provers use second order predicate logic which is a formal logic system.

Every formal system is characterized by

• An organised body of knowledge
• Domain specific terms and semantics
• Procedures for working with/on knowledge
• A set of needs the system addresses
• A set of goals the system aims to meet
• Limitations of the system

What have we gained?

A formal system is needed whenever more than two people are involved . I can invent a new game and play it all by myself and there is no need to formalize it. But the moment I start to explain it to the next person, the two of us have to go through the motions of a formal system even if we don't write it down on paper.

A formal system is a mode of thinking or a pattern of thought and percolates just about every activity people are involved in. Just as maths enables counting in a variety of sittuations the notion of 'formal system' enables a better appreciation of what you are really upto.

Quite often people don't recognize a formal system when they see one and this is just as bad as people not being able to do simple math.

It is not as though it is general public ( or shall we say the laity) that is at fault. Well known scientists often fall prey to it. I read a newspaper report to the effect that the speed of light is different in some parts of the universe. An enlightened scientist would know that no theory can be better than the set of facts on which the laws,models and theory are based. Looking at science as a formal system immedietely enables you to ask 'what are the scope and limitations?' . Ofcourse these things are debated but we facilitate the process by weeding out the 'simple math'.

Lest you start feeling that the notions are only for high science let me add that the notion is useful to anyone embarking on a study of any subject political science, relegion, economics, sports...(name it and there you are with an avatar of formal system). Even if you are not studying recognizing a problem correctly is half the problem solved in real world sittuations.We will see some examples later on and I hope the notion sinks in.

Introducing the problem

A word at the outset about my interests.I am exposed to both formal systems as well as philosophy though I can hardly claim to have even scratched the surface let alone mastered these.

Motivation

I was discussing SUO-KIF ontology with a friend of mine and he said you are using words to complicate issues (words like ontology ,upper ontology domain ontology etc). I responded by saying that 'when you formalize a body of knowledge you do introduce special terms to simplify discussion of that domain'.

I was reading an article in TOI entitled 'Can India afford an ethical foreign policy?' (Oct 14) by SHASHI THAROOR. In my opinion he has used the words 'ethics' and 'morality' interchangeably. My answer was first you need a 'Formal Ethics' before can raise that question. I am aware that I am adding the implicit assumption that one way of distinguishing ethics from morality is to use it's normative sense. Should there be a distinction? . Is the distinction 'academic' and 'pedantic'?. I felt that in a multicultural ,multi religious society you do need an agreement - A Formal one against which we can say ethical or unethical. Besides it avoids the question 'whose morality?'.

I have also observed that any abstraction has a tendency to remove content from reality. e.g Newton's laws are an abstraction of the way real world bodies move.Of course it can be considered merely a modelling compromise (trade off of coverage vs simplicity&elegance).Let me remind you that you cannot use the laws to predict the motion of an insect.

So I said let me take a look at the search engine and see what shows up as Philosophy of formal systems. There were some 150 results and I was using a new search engine (AltKplus?) clubbing the google yahoo etc. All the entries implied Formal system = Formal Logic.

What are the problems? (my view)

• While Formal Logic is a useful tool for modelling mathematics and computers is that all?
• One way to define a Formal system is as a model(abstraction) one which is capable of being manipulated by humans for various purposes including verifiability in appropriate domains.
• General characheristics of all formal systems-semantics,domain,purpose,limitations for example
• What are Modelling losses or trade offs?
• How many conceivable models? Recall that there are three geometries though they may not all model the real world
• Some sort of a Meta Formal system?