Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Pictorial systems fail on syntactic grounds. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Pictorial systems are not notational systems.

    Pictorial systems fail on syntactic grounds.

    AestheticsPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    AestheticsPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    Pictorial systems are not notational systems.Pictorial systems fail on semantic grounds.

    Similar

    Pictorial systems fail on semantic grounds.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Aesthetics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    86%
    Programs implemented by computers are purely syntactical.78%
    Analog systems completely lack articulation.77%
    Pictorial systems are not notational systems.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: goodman-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    For the symbol system also to be notational, more than syntactic disjointness and finite differentiation is required. Symbol systems are notational when 1) the characters are correlated to the field of reference unambiguously (with no character being correlated to more than one class of reference, or “compliance class”), 2) what a character refers to—the compliance class—must not intersect the compliance class of another character (i.e., the characters must be semantically disjoint), and 3) it i

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective