Re:Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human Lang...
by manquer on Friday September 03, 2021 @06:58AM
(#28402595)
Not to quibble , you should receive Bill de Blassio as the current mayor of New York City .
You are perhaps thinking of Andrew Cuomo who recently stepped down as governor of New York State in a sexual harassment scandal.
Re:Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human Lang...
by grlass on Friday September 03, 2021 @07:38AM
(#28402853)
I guess that feeds into the cultural/temporal ambiguities of "what is new york?" and "what is a mayor".
New York could be the state, and mayor could just be a word that means leader of an area.
Perhaps that is getting too into the realm of deterritorialisation, but the point being that these concepts are context specific.
Re:Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human Lang...
by manquer on Friday September 03, 2021 @12:12PM
(#28406098)
Perhaps so, in any other topic thread it wouldn't have mattered as much, we are talking about abstract Wikipedia this kind of challenges will come when knowledge is expected to transcend language.
P.S. Also OP said "antony cumio" Andrew Cuomo is similar but quite different .
P.P.S. I wouldn't expect context to differentiate say between City of London and London City but New York City and New York state is somewhat well known ?
Both the city elections for mayor ( preferential voting) and state governor (sexual harassment) has been in the news lately.
Re:Wikipedia Is Trying to Transcend the Limits of Human Lang...
by Ekaros on Friday September 03, 2021 @08:07AM
(#28403073)
Or it might change what city has and there be small but distinct differences between Mayor and for example City manager. So at one point in time they have city manager and then after that mayor. These two being similar, but distinct roles...
Not to even go defining what is a city...
On the occasion I generate the text, "who is the mayor of new york", I should receive the text, "antony cumio" (etc.).
For extremely narrow questions with canonical answers in a canonical form (eg., how many protons are in a gold atom) this is fine. This works as a kind of coincidence: for these types of questions is a coincidence that their answers can be canonical.
In general, language is a tool for navigating ones (principally social) environment. Absent this environment, mere text /has no meaning/. The question "what contributions did hegel make to philosophy?" has no canonical answer, and depends on a deep network of knowledge, belief, understanding and context which arises from being situated/embedded within some social environment.
The question means something different if asked by an 14 year old, vs. a professional philosopher. And if asked by a scientist, or if asked by a janitor.
Learning is a situated process, and language is a situated embedded phenomenon. Learning isnt acquiring a cannonical answer, it is a dialectical process of bridging the new meanings to the old ones you have acquired.