From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Feb 15 18:29:04 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:29:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from f171.law8.hotmail.com ([216.33.241.171] helo=hotmail.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18kEYB-0004Ky-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:29:03 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:28:32 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:28:31 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:28:31 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2003 02:28:32.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[193B4AF0:01C2D563] X-archive-position: 128 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. > >To observe is to distinguish AND to name. You can't name something if you >don't distinguisch it from something else. So observing and naming is >equivalent. In that case, why not just use {cmene}? But I think you can observe without naming, and you could also name what can't be observed. You yourself talked about "the name for that which can not be observed", so obviously you are making a distinction between things that can be named and things that can be observed. >>>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. > >Yes. Lo Apple is not a luman zei nunzga. But a luman zei nunzga can be >called by the name it gave to the space it marked. That's metonymy, isn't it? Using the same name for the space marked and for the operation of distinguishing that space. That can only lead to confusion, it seems to me. >>>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. > >The metatalk is a luman zei nunzga. Your reference to apples is a luman zei >nunzga. What you are referring to is an observation. Yes, but it is not the same luman zei nunzga that I'm talking about. A given nunzga distinguishes a certain state, and gives it a name. The way I refer to that state need not be the same name that the nunzga that I'm talking about uses. >>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" > >The system does not give the name. The operation does that. So this part of >your definition is flawed. When we translate "le velbo'e cu velbo'e da" as >"The system observes 'X'" That's a very naturalistic translation. The >correct translation should be "The system is a system that has as one of >it's elements an operation that distinguishes 'x'" (I need to figure a more >mathematically exact definition of X4 that makes that clear). > >The operation does not know anything about x3. All it does is draw a >distinction and name one side. Right, so we have the following components: 1- the maker of the distinction and namer 2- the name given 3- the side named 4- the side unnamed There is no need for the operation to know anything. >The difference of your X2 and your X3 already requires another operation. >So you would have to make the definition of your X3 recursive, just like I >did with my latest version of my definition for terbo'e. You will then >notice that your X3 and your X4 are defined exactly the same way. So your >X3 is redundant. I don't understand what you mean. >Take a look at the quote from Laws of Form in one of my previous posts. >Spencer Brown is not talking about things. He is talking about a space >that's divided into two spaces (and he uses space in a mathematical/logical >sense, not as physical space with 3 dimensions). Then one of the sides of >that division is marked. Not any specific things on that side but the side. Ok. x1: the one doing the division and marking x2: the mark x3: the side that gets the mark x4: the side that doesn't get the mark 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