From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 10:09:06 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 10:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgPVv-00064U-PU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 10:08:47 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgPVt-00064M-Dz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 10:08:47 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so248757ugd for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 10:08:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=sL7xsi/AC0+Ll1EPWexy8cnv1/BIpLixEVMklYiRb3sZK2yoKq1+MpaK4xatuTuT6bVkWit5/pUZwY0ztGjo9ite+gcfpWS3icHI7aZ/4x21+hcNNYPAwWH9iv5r3XxkKfr2qtUsfvg6YrxaCGosq1Ze944NGipyCuDUSnYXbX0= Received: by 10.78.48.16 with SMTP id v16mr252813huv; Wed, 17 May 2006 10:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.14.9 with HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 10:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2d3df92a0605171008g7e953a6ag2501fc9c09d813a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:08:43 +0200 From: HeliodoR To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060517163746.45101.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_83133_24727573.1147885723309" References: <20060517163746.45101.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-archive-position: 11588 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: exitconsole@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_83133_24727573.1147885723309 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline > > 2. In every situation (a discourse carried > on in a given environment), for any object or > group of objects, there is a description that > applies (and will be seen to apply) to exactly > that object or group. Further, this description > does not rely on the flow of discourse and > relies on the environment only for ostention; > that is, it relies only on overtly mentioned > properties and deixis. It thus avoids the > difficulties that make Lojban descriptions so > fallible. And, being not relativized to the > discourse, it can introduce things that are not > already relevant to this discourse. I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Here's a link about a theory or metaphysical POV called nominalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism Consider one of the simplest possible groups: how do You explicitly describe {lo cribe} to a nominalist who doesn't quite believe that there are nearly identical things as bears? How do You explain what You have in mind? I think the differences of personal point-of-views prevent us from talking about one "objective reality". However, I agree with the rest of the proposal. Only some intuitive use of the rules should be presumed, or axioms should be settled about the perception of "reality". mi'e.darves. ------=_Part_83133_24727573.1147885723309 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
2.     =  In every situation (a discourse carried
on in a given environment)= , for any object or
group of objects, there is a description  = that
applies (and will be seen to apply) to exactly
that object or group.=   Further, this description
does not rely on the flow of disco= urse  and
relies on the environment only for ostention;
tha= t is, it relies only on overtly mentioned
properties and deixis.  It thus avoids the
difficulties th= at make Lojban descriptions so
fallible.  And, being not relat= ivized to the
discourse, it can introduce things that are not
already= relevant to this discourse.
 
I doubt it. I doubt it very much.
Here's a link about a theory or metaphysical POV called nominalism:
Consider one of the simplest possible groups: how do You explicitly
describe {lo cribe} to a nominalist who doesn't quite believe tha= t there
are nearly identical things as bears? How do You explain what You
have in mind?
I think the differences of personal point-of-views prevent us fro= m
talking about one "objective reality".
 
However, I agree with the rest of the proposal. Only some intuitive us= e
of the rules should be presumed, or axioms should be settled about
the perception of "reality".
 
mi'e.darves.
------=_Part_83133_24727573.1147885723309-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.