Subject: RE^n+2: literalism

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:32:40 EDT

xod:
<<You seem to be saying that, although a racoon can be described in a finite
number of words, as can the "black cat" be described by two, a racoon is a
new concept whereas the black cat is not, because the number of words to
describe racoon is unwieldy.>>
Not what I meant to be saying, in any case. Can a raccoon be
adequately described in a finite number of words if none of these
words changes its meaning in the course of being used in the
description? Maybe, but then we already had a broad meaning for
all of those words, such that raccoon was alrady a possibility
inherent in them and so not a new concept after all. 
I thought all this was a trivial point, that a *new* concept was a concept we 
did not
already have, but apparently everyone else understands it differently.

I'm not sure that the discussion has gone on beyond its natural limits, since 
the unclarities and confusions seem to remain, but conducting it in Lojban 
would slow it down a bit, I imagine.