[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [jboske] Re: Counting Nick

> And Rosta scripsit:
> > No -- For Kind as defined by me -- &-Kind -- Mr Nick does write words and 
> > eat specific fish. However, he does so in infinitely many possible
> > worlds. One of the special things about &-kinds is that they inhabit
> > many worlds, occurring wherever their manifestations occur in those
> > worlds 
> Well, consider those Amazonian lunatics who think every new day is
> announced by the rising of a new Sun individual. If we can get them to
> believe that all these Suns are merely avatars of Apollo Helios, then
> why cannot they retort that (by the same token) we will next tell them
> that the fish they eat every day are merely avatars of Amazonus Piscus 

They can retort that. I'm not sure if I see what you were getting at.

> Or perhaps you mean that all of these are true:
> Mr. Nick types on Mr. Computer
> Mr. Nick types on the computer of the day
> The Nick of the day types on Mr. Computer
> The Nick of the day types on the computer of the day

Where "the X of the day" means "an instance/avatar of Mr X", I was
saying that I thought all those are true (in an ontology that
accepts the notions on which these expressions are founded, of
course). I am not 100% certain, now, though: I haven't thought
of any clear pros and cons.

> Or consider Fido the rottweiler. Is it true that:
> Fido is an avatar of Mr. Dog
> Fido is an avatar of Mr. Rottweiler
> Fido is an avatar of Mr. Fido
> Fido is an avatar of Mr. Fido of 2003
> Have I got it now?

Each of those kinds has an avatar (what I called Instance elsewhere)
that we might call 'Fido', yes. But we (IMO) cannot recognize Fido
except as something that is an instance of Mr Fido or of a subkind