On Feb 6, 9:14 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Suppose that we have three bricks, A,B,C, now one can understand the > Whole of those bricks to be an object that have every part of it > overlapping with brick A or B or C, lets denote that whole by W. Of > course clearly W is not a brick, W is the totality of all the three > above mentioned bricks. However here I want to capture the idea of > 'membership' of that whole, more specifically what do we mean when we > say that brick A is a 'member' of W. We know that A is a part of W, > but being a part of W is not enough by itself to qualify A as being a > member of W, one can observe that brick A itself can have many proper > parts of it and those would be parts of W of course (since part-hood > is transitive) and yet non of those is a member of W. So for a part of > W to be a member of W there must be some property that it must > satisfy.
I think you've stumbled onto a more generic problem of identification and reference.
e.g. the sentence "were does that go?"
makes sense to people because we can see where the speaker is pointing at.
an identifying action not part of the sentencial language.
I plan to incorporate the mouse pointer to cover this effect in Natural Language processing.