eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 23.March – 23.March 2021
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de
CONTEXT
This text is part of a philosophy of science analysis of the case of the oksimo software (oksimo.com). A specification of the oksimo software from an engineering point of view can be found in four consecutive posts dedicated to the HMI-Analysis for this software.
STARTING WITH SOMETHING ‘REAL’
A basic idea of the oksimo behavior space is to bring together different human actors, let them share their knowledge and experience of some real part of their world and then they are invited to think about, how one can improve this part.
What sounds so common — some real part of their world — isn’t necessarily easy to define.
As has been discussed in the preceding post to make language expressions decidable this is only possible if certain practical requirements are fulfilled. The ‘practical recipe’
makedecidable : S x Ahum x E —> E x {true, false}
given in the preceding post claims that you — if you want to know whether an expression E is concrete and can be classified as ‘true’ or ‘false’ — have to ask a human actor Ahum , which is part of the same concrete situation S as you, and he/ she should confirm or disclaim whether the expression E can be interpreted as being ‘true’ or ‘false’ in this situation S.
Usually, if there is a real concrete situation S with you and some other human actor A, then you both will have a perception of the situation, you will both have internal abstraction processes with abstract states, you will have mappings from such abstracted states into some expressions of your internal language Lint and you and the other human actor A can exchange external expressions corresponding to the inner expressions and thereby corresponding to the internal abstracted states of the situation S. Even if the used language expressions E — like for instance ‘There is a white wooden table‘ — will contain abstract expressions/ universal expressions like ‘white’, ‘wooden’, ‘table’, even then you and the other human actor will be able to decide whether there are properties of the concrete situation which are fitting as accepted instances the universal parts of the language expression ‘There is a white wooden table‘.
Thus being in a real situation S with the other human actors enables usually all participants of the situation to decide language expressions which are related to the situation.
But what consequences does it have if you are somehow abroad, if you are not actually part of the situation S? Usually — if you are hearing or reading an expression like ‘There is a white wooden table‘ — you will be able to get an idea of the intended meaning only by your learned meaning function φ which maps the external expression into an internal expression and further maps the internal expression into the learned abstracted states. While the expressions ‘white’ and ‘wooden’ are perhaps rather ‘clear’ the expression ‘table’ is today associated with many, many different possible concrete matters and only by hearing or reading it is not possible to decide which of all these are the intended concrete matter. Thus although if you would be able to decided in the real situation S which of these many possible instances are given in the real situation, with the expression only disconnected from the situation, you are not able to decide whether the expression is true or not. Thus the expression has the cognitive status that it perhaps can be true but actually you cannot decide.
REALITY SUPPORTERS
Between the two cases (i) being part of he real situation S or (ii) being disconnected from the real situation S there are many variants of situations which can be understood as giving some additional support to decide whether an expression E is rather true or not.
The main weakness for not being able to decide is the lack of hints to narrow down the set of possible interpretations of learned meanings by counter examples. Thus while a human actor could have learned that the expression ‘table’ can be associated with for instance 25 different concrete matters, then he/ she needs some hints/ clues which of these possibilities can be ruled out and thereby the actor could narrow down the set of possible learned meanings to then only for instance left possibly 5 of 25.
While the real situation S can not be send along with the expression it is possible to send for example a drawing of the situation S or a photo. If properties are involved which deserve different senses like smelling or hearing or touching or … then a photo would not suffice.
Thus to narrow down the possible interpretations of an expression for someone who is not part of the situation it can be of help to give additional ‘clues’ if possible, but this is not always possible and moreover it is always more or less incomplete.