Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1ec1b9e9-3f83-4599-a127-f978cbd844c4@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2cPjyaOZcqOQSXrWRdKbFmkzvDDFg3MQCVWiM4f62R1-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <218161c6-b97e-4e8f-b2e9-a2583094f749@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+i90zpzn=O-5+YGeSxhEvFWk6574drR=bs1gmgc7U3bnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+i90zpzn=O-5+YGeSxhEvFWk6574drR=bs1gmgc7U3bnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 11:33:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKOEKkT2d61OWw0orJN9PCE135cqL3ZB_Bno5ZjwfOn7JH7apQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Sensations / qualia (colors etc.)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005dde55059dd6b9a6"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_bar: --

--0000000000005dde55059dd6b9a6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

  I mean, I'm reading emails from 3.5 years ago, and Lord knows i don't
grok modern dialects of lojban, but.  What's wrong with "mi nelci (tu'a) lo
ka xunre"? isn't the whole point of ka to be a quale extractor?
           --gejyspa

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:06 AM Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 2016-05-12 11:43 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>:
>
>> Throughout this response, I use "qualia" rather than "quale" at some
>> points because there may be more than one quale associated with that thing,
>> I do not want to assume.
>>
>> > "Is that very different from "I like elephants", "elephants are
>> beautiful animals"?"
>>
>> Yes, at least from a technical standpoint in Lojban. In Lojban "lo xunre"
>> is a red thing. So, we can only say "I like red things" and "red things are
>> beautiful things". To actually capture the essence of redness, we need a
>> new mechanism. We could also use it in order to capture the qualia of
>> elephantness, but that is only sort of what you probably like or find
>> beautiful. There is an added layer of abstraction or instant-experience
>> there. Red (the color) is a sensation, independent of what is causing it
>> (the stimulus). The essence/being of an elephant is similar, but not really
>> a sensation that I, at least, directly register normally. However, if you
>> had never seen an elephant and I described everything about them to you,
>> and then you eventually experienced one in real life, any new information
>> that you gained from the experience would presumably be the qualia of
>> elephantness and that is something which you would have a firmer grasp on
>> and might like. I would not say, though, that most people are thinking this
>> way when saying that they like elephants, although maybe they could or
>> should (or should could).
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Is that very different from "I see elephants" when there are no
>> elephants around?"
>>
>> Again, a little bit. Seeing red is a direct sensation. There is no object
>> involved and no processing/deeper understanding.
>
>
> There is still some object that is red. How can you sense red without an
> object?
>
> A red apple is on a red table together with a red knife and there is the
> red sun that you can see through the red window. All of them together
> (table+apple+knife+window+the sun) can be called "one single red thing (or
> grand-thing if you wish)".
>
> All of the red things you have ever experiences in your life can be called
> "one single red thing" (so that's why "set of all things" in gua\spi
> definition although "set" needs more precise definition here, obviously,
> the same apple seen two times are two experiences and therefore two
> mini-things that are parts of one grand-thing).
>
>
> Seeing an elephant is seeing an object which is an elephant and
>> interpreting it as such (even if that object does not exist, there is no
>> way of knowing that by instanteous vision alone). Of course, there are some
>> qualia to it, but there is also, in the normal interpretation of that
>> statement, something more. It is not impossible to see the qualia of
>> elephantness, but that is not what you really mean, I think.
>>
>
> So what is meant here?
> I've seen several pictures of elephants in books and now I sense a real
> elephant. It has the same set of properties as those elephants have
> (pictures of whom I read earlier.)
> I've seen that red apple, that red knife and now I can see a red ball.
> Earlier experiences had red being 640 nm and 660 nm wavelength together (a
> mixture of two properties, both wavelengths are expressed with "red").
> This red ball is 640 nm only (+ many other properties like roundness etc.)
> I've never seen red balls before but this one matches my earlier
> experiences so I call it "red". This red ball also has this property of 640
> nm as the aopple and the knife.
>
> This elephant also has this property of "has trunk + gray + four legs +
> ears" just as those elephants pictured in those books I read earlier.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "So "I like elephants" becomes "mi nelci lo ganseti be lo ka xanto"?"
>>
>> No. That is "I like the qualia of elephantness". Liking the object of an
>> or several elephant(s) is just "mi nelci lo xanto". An elephant is one
>> object which has the qualia of elephantness (and, arguably, might be the
>> unique class with this property). Analogously, "mi nelci lo xunre" is "I
>> like one or several objects which are red". These objects are things which
>> have the quale of redness (possibly and even probably/arguably necessarily
>> among other qualia). To like redness itself, the very idea and essence and
>> immediate sensation of it, one needs the qualia abstraction.
>>
>>
>>
>> > "I don't see a problem with a word for "qualia", but I don't expect
>> people to start saying "I like the qualia of being red" or "I like the
>> qualia of being an elephant" instead of "I like red" or "I like elephants"
>> though. It seems more natural that "lo xanto", "lo xunre" can be elephants
>> (in general) and red as well as particular elephants or particular red
>> objects. I'd rather these ontological distinctions be handled with brivla,
>> not grammaticized with cmavo."
>>
>> It is a matter of what people should say, not what they currently do say
>> due to bad habits and the failings of natural languages and their own
>> education and tendencies in using Lojban. If they are alerted to such
>> issues, then they are more likely to improve. As they currently are, and if
>> they ignore these issues, they are incorrect. Lojban is, in my opinion,
>> meant to bring this realization to the surface and then to fix it and to
>> provide the tools for doing so in a reasonable but uncompromisingly
>> rigorous way. Natural usage has nothing to do with it because it is wrong
>> in this case.
>>
>> I think that a cmavo is extremely beneficial and probably necessary in
>> this case. In general, we may try to avoid staking out ontological
>> positions via their establishment.
>>
>> Note that this is not just a philosophical position that is being
>> hardcoded into the language's vocabulary, functionality/support, and
>> grammar. There is already a major flaw in the language that must be patched
>> somehow. This is one solution, and a versatile and robust one at that. And,
>> like I said, it is good to bring awareness to the language's learners about
>> this issue in their own conscious understanding of their cognition.
>
>
> I think the only flaw here is to be still with morphology of English with
> its adjective/noun distinction.
> E.g. Russian language uses colors as verbs so what? Shall we borrow this
> thing into Lojban?
>
> The only lack of precision I can see in red/elephant distinction is that
> elephants are more stable in time but this is a vague distinction as people
> mentioned many times (e.g. [1]
> <https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Tl%C3%B6n,_Uqbar_and_la_gleki's_fishy_apples>
> ).
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CAKOEKkT2d61OWw0orJN9PCE135cqL3ZB_Bno5ZjwfOn7JH7apQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--0000000000005dde55059dd6b9a6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">=C2=A0 I mean, I&#39;m reading emails from 3.5 years ago, =
and Lord knows i don&#39;t grok modern dialects of lojban, but.=C2=A0 What&=
#39;s wrong with &quot;mi nelci (tu&#39;a) lo ka xunre&quot;? isn&#39;t the=
 whole point of ka to be a quale extractor?<div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=
 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--gejyspa</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:06 AM Gleki Arxokun=
a &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.=
com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e=
x"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">2016-05-12 11:43 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:curtis.w.franks@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">curtis.w.franks@g=
mail.com</a>&gt;</span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e=
x">Throughout this response, I use &quot;qualia&quot; rather than &quot;qua=
le&quot; at some points because there may be more than one quale associated=
 with that thing, I do not want to assume.<br>
<span><br>
&gt; &quot;Is that very different from &quot;I like elephants&quot;, &quot;=
elephants are beautiful animals&quot;?&quot;<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, at least from a technical standpoint in Lojban. In Lojban &quot=
;lo xunre&quot; is a red thing. So, we can only say &quot;I like red things=
&quot; and &quot;red things are beautiful things&quot;. To actually capture=
 the essence of redness, we need a new mechanism. We could also use it in o=
rder to capture the qualia of elephantness, but that is only sort of what y=
ou probably like or find beautiful. There is an added layer of abstraction =
or instant-experience there. Red (the color) is a sensation, independent of=
 what is causing it (the stimulus). The essence/being of an elephant is sim=
ilar, but not really a sensation that I, at least, directly register normal=
ly. However, if you had never seen an elephant and I described everything a=
bout them to you, and then you eventually experienced one in real life, any=
 new information that you gained from the experience would presumably be th=
e qualia of elephantness and that is something which you would have a firme=
r grasp on and might like. I would not say, though, that most people are th=
inking this way when saying that they like elephants, although maybe they c=
ould or should (or should could).<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; &quot;Is that very different from &quot;I see elephants&quot; when the=
re are no elephants around?&quot;<br>
<br>
</span>Again, a little bit. Seeing red is a direct sensation. There is no o=
bject involved and no processing/deeper understanding.</blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>There is still some object that is red. How can you sense red w=
ithout an object?</div><div><br></div><div>A red apple is on a red table to=
gether with a red knife and there is the red sun that you can see through t=
he red window. All of them together (table+apple+knife+window+the sun) can =
be called &quot;one single red thing (or grand-thing if you wish)&quot;.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>All of the red things you have ever experiences in y=
our life can be called &quot;one single red thing&quot; (so that&#39;s why =
&quot;set of all things&quot; in gua\spi definition although &quot;set&quot=
; needs more precise definition here, obviously, the same apple seen two ti=
mes are two experiences and therefore two mini-things that are parts of one=
 grand-thing).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20=
4,204);padding-left:1ex"> Seeing an elephant is seeing an object which is a=
n elephant and interpreting it as such (even if that object does not exist,=
 there is no way of knowing that by instanteous vision alone). Of course, t=
here are some qualia to it, but there is also, in the normal interpretation=
 of that statement, something more. It is not impossible to see the qualia =
of elephantness, but that is not what you really mean, I think.<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>So what is meant here?</div><div>I&#39;ve seen sev=
eral pictures of elephants in books and now I sense a real elephant. It has=
 the same set of properties as those elephants have (pictures of whom I rea=
d earlier.)</div><div>I&#39;ve seen that red apple, that red knife and now =
I can see a red ball.</div><div>Earlier experiences had red being 640 nm an=
d 660 nm wavelength together (a mixture of two properties, both wavelengths=
 are expressed with &quot;red&quot;).</div><div>This red ball is 640 nm onl=
y (+ many other properties like roundness etc.) I&#39;ve never seen red bal=
ls before but this one matches my earlier experiences so I call it &quot;re=
d&quot;. This red ball also has this property of 640 nm as the aopple and t=
he knife.</div><div><br></div><div>This elephant also has this property of =
&quot;has trunk + gray + four legs + ears&quot; just as those elephants pic=
tured in those books I read earlier.</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; &quot;So &quot;I like elephants&quot; becomes &quot;mi nelci lo ganset=
i be lo ka xanto&quot;?&quot;<br>
<br>
</span>No. That is &quot;I like the qualia of elephantness&quot;. Liking th=
e object of an or several elephant(s) is just &quot;mi nelci lo xanto&quot;=
. An elephant is one object which has the qualia of elephantness (and, argu=
ably, might be the unique class with this property). Analogously, &quot;mi =
nelci lo xunre&quot; is &quot;I like one or several objects which are red&q=
uot;. These objects are things which have the quale of redness (possibly an=
d even probably/arguably necessarily among other qualia). To like redness i=
tself, the very idea and essence and immediate sensation of it, one needs t=
he qualia abstraction.<br>
<span><br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; &quot;I don&#39;t see a problem with a word for &quot;qualia&quot;, bu=
t I don&#39;t expect people to start saying &quot;I like the qualia of bein=
g red&quot; or &quot;I like the qualia of being an elephant&quot; instead o=
f &quot;I like red&quot; or &quot;I like elephants&quot; though. It seems m=
ore natural that &quot;lo xanto&quot;, &quot;lo xunre&quot; can be elephant=
s (in general) and red as well as particular elephants or particular red ob=
jects. I&#39;d rather these ontological distinctions be handled with brivla=
, not grammaticized with cmavo.&quot;<br>
<br>
</span>It is a matter of what people should say, not what they currently do=
 say due to bad habits and the failings of natural languages and their own =
education and tendencies in using Lojban. If they are alerted to such issue=
s, then they are more likely to improve. As they currently are, and if they=
 ignore these issues, they are incorrect. Lojban is, in my opinion, meant t=
o bring this realization to the surface and then to fix it and to provide t=
he tools for doing so in a reasonable but uncompromisingly rigorous way. Na=
tural usage has nothing to do with it because it is wrong in this case.<br>
<br>
I think that a cmavo is extremely beneficial and probably necessary in this=
 case. In general, we may try to avoid staking out ontological positions vi=
a their establishment.<br>
<br>
Note that this is not just a philosophical position that is being hardcoded=
 into the language&#39;s vocabulary, functionality/support, and grammar. Th=
ere is already a major flaw in the language that must be patched somehow. T=
his is one solution, and a versatile and robust one at that. And, like I sa=
id, it is good to bring awareness to the language&#39;s learners about this=
 issue in their own conscious understanding of their cognition.=C2=A0</bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>I think the only flaw here is to be still with m=
orphology of English with its adjective/noun distinction.</div><div>E.g. Ru=
ssian language uses colors as verbs so what? Shall we borrow this thing int=
o Lojban?</div><div><br></div><div>The only lack of precision I can see in =
red/elephant distinction is that elephants are more stable in time but this=
 is a vague distinction as people mentioned=C2=A0many times (e.g. <a href=
=3D"https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Tl%C3%B6n,_Uqbar_and_la_gleki&#39;s_fishy_a=
pples" target=3D"_blank">[1]</a>).</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</span>Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojba=
n" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/group/loj=
ban</a>.<br>
<div><div>For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/op=
tout" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/opto=
ut</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAKOEKkT2d61OWw0orJN9PCE135cqL3ZB_Bno5ZjwfOn7JH7apQ%40mai=
l.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/CAKOEKkT2d61OWw0orJN9PCE135cqL3ZB_Bno5ZjwfOn7JH7apQ%40mai=
l.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--0000000000005dde55059dd6b9a6--