From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Feb 15 12:15:56 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:15:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from f32.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.32] helo=hotmail.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18k8j5-0002Qw-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:15:55 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:15:24 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:15:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] From: "Jorge Llambias" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:15:24 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2003 20:15:24.0994 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9710220:01C2D52E] X-archive-position: 126 X-Approved-By: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la ian cusku di'e >The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for "that >wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be observed", and >that's a valid luman zei nunzga. Originally you talked about a distinction between "that which is named" and "that which is not named". Now you are making a distinction between the name for "that which can be observed" and the name for "that which can not be observed", which however can still be named. >They can refer to themselves (they can refer to one of their operations and >thus mark this side of the difference between themselves and their >environment), but they can not operate in the unmarked space of lo'i >velbo'e se velbo'e. Any talk about things that are not luman zei nunzga are >actually beyond what they can deal with. I don't understand what you are saying here. An apple presumably is not a luman zei nunzga, it is not an event of observing, and yet the system can talk about apples. >The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about things, >we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things in X2 and X3 >of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid operation of those >systems. By allowing the observation of things we actually break the >operational closure. You seem to be mixing what the systems talk about with what we say about the systems. I can say "The system doesn't observe apples, it can only deal with the symbol 'apple'." Then I am referring to apples, something which I claim that the system can't do, but which I can do in the metatalk about the system. >So the definition will have to go back to symbols for X2 and X3 (and also >for X4 and X1, or otherwise the system will not be able to refer to itself >or to its operations). So you want the brivla "brode" to describe a relationship among four words? Again you seem to be mixing what a system can refer to and what we refer to in our talk about a system. >I think with the recursive definition of x3 the problem of the "nu'o se >sinxa" should be solved. I don't know. I haven't yet grasped where you are going with all this. I understand the idea of an observation as an operation whereby one makes a distinction and names one side of the distinction, but I don't understand the point of the place structure you propose. It seems that a place structure like: "x1 gives name x2 to x3 which is distinguished from x4" should do. Then you can use {nu} to refer to the event in which this is accomplished. x1 would normally be a person, but it can refer to your "systems" in a specialized context. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail