SUO: interpreter vs interpretant
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> I have even found myself accused of the dreaded
> sins of "agentism", "individualism", "psychologism" for doing no
> more than referring to the "interpreter" in the very same way
> that Peirce did, as a soppy embodiment of and a way-station
> to the more fundamental, but more difficult to explain,
> notion of an interpretant sign.
What is an 'interpretant sign' ?
I would like to tease out a acceptable ontology of these concepts:
1) interpreter
2) interpretant
3) memories (examples might be a psychological state or a computer data base
record)
I think that we already have a acceptable concept of an Agent; in that I
doubt that many ontologists would reasonably disagree. Assuming this, then
can't we say that an Agent is composed of an interpreter and memory states?
If the Agent is a running piece of software on a database of sumo:Formula,
then it's interpreter would be a sumo:Procedure and it's memories might be
sumo:Formula.
Like in this picture:
http://robustai.net/mentography/interpertant4.gif
Seth Russell