From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 06 15:58:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnkUr-0001Iy-GO for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:58:01 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnkUm-0001Ij-UX for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:58:01 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id w49so37836pyg for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:57:55 -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:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MomUFW3FBo+1tEWQOQOa/3rGOTdPksV1sPUXPnMG4hA25eWyTpcod9Ak51t7VUOSZRkssf9ZGsBX/Tyq2iD7t2dBL9qS2vubvVKYx1uMP7+BL2mDBCsStRvuTiq5d4OvopYPzgQfUzDZ26qn9BAawbnKzB9EwT26+IzbNnoAF7g= Received: by 10.35.34.18 with SMTP id m18mr72934pyj; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.37.4 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 16:57:55 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060606175408.36256.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11748 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 6/6/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- Maxim Katcharov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías > > > > wrote: > > > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when > > you > > > > say "the students" does not > > > > > > mean that "the students" does not refer > > to > > > > a group of students. It > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But it > > is > > > > not the only possible view. > > > > > > > > Ok, then please show an alternate view. > > You've > > > > flatly asserted that > > > > one exists, yet when I ask you to explain > > it, a > > > > vague two-word answer > > > > ("the students") with no explanation or > > > > demonstrative examples is all > > > > I get. > > > > > > On a pluralist view, reference is a relation, > > not > > > a function, so that a single term may refer > > > simultaneously to several things. > > > > Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer to > > think of it as a > > relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to me. > > I don't see what this is illustrating or, > perhaps, just what is says about the way > reference is treated: function or relation. That the pluralist view is not the only one to think of things as a relation. > > > The question that I pose > > is: what is the nature of the relation between, > > say, Alice (one of the > > students that surrounds the building) and the > > surrounding of the > > building? The relation is crystal clear between > > Alice and the wearing > > of a hat, but the building-surroundment > > relation seems to be > > vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down. I > > suspect that this is > > because the true nature of this pluralist > > relationship is that of a > > mass - the relationship is that Alice is part > > of a mass/group that > > surrounds the building, and that there simply > > is no other sensible > > interpretation. > > Well, I suppose that Alice's relation surrounding > the building (when she is one of the students > surrounding the building)is "participation." I Participation in an event? xorxes already offered this. Consider "the students surround the students". What is Alice participating in? > suppose that giving it a name is not going to > satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out the > formal specifications of the relation, you will > just say "Oh, that's just membership in the > group." Yes, that's exactly what I'll say, because that's exactly what it is. It's a mistake to think that masses can only be physical lumps of something. For example, 1000 people can be foolish each (by gathering fools together, and inciting them each to do foolish things), or together they can "participate" in a large-scale foolishness, without being foolish each. What this is saying is that they're component parts of an action, the action of being foolish. Same thing, different perspective, still a mass. > Or if I try to specify it in extension, > spelling out how she particpates (standing NEbyN > of the building at the same time as others are > standing at the other points of the compass, say) > you will relate that to being a member of the > group as well. Well, yes. This is the method of participation. For example, I can say "together the three men lifted the piano, by method of one man directing, and two men bearing". > To which I can only say > "Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist > languages are two different ways of stating the > same facts. Not quite. The pluralist view asserts that you don't introduce masses. Instead, there's a special "bunch-together" (or something - it hasn't exactly been elaborated upon) that supposedly handles the questions raised by the removal of "mass". > They are completely > intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical way. > You want a pluralist claim that is not > interpretable as a singularist one and there just > ain't any. This whole discussion is totally > vacuous. If pluralist "loi ci tadni" translated into "da poi gunma lo ci tadni", then everything would be just fine. But that's supposedly not what it translates to. > > > > > A sentence > > > using this term will be true if those things > > are > > > in the extension of the predicate in the > > > appropriate way, either individually or > > together. > > > From this basis, a complete semantics can be > > > (has been) developed, which produces the > > > classical system with the "among" relation > > added. > > > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications of > > being "among a group such that". > > And so it does -- when used by a singularist. > When used by a pluralist, it doesn't. But the > properties of "among" are the same for both. But in the pluralist view, there's still a group there, you just don't choose to acknowledge it, right? > > > > In a totally parallel way, we can develop a > > > semantics with things and masses and the > > usual > > > definitions of truth and get the same > > classical > > > system with "among" added. What is said is > > the > > > same, the conditions for truth are totally > > > intertranslatable, and so on. > > > > > > > I doubt that you'll be left anything to > > explain > > > > your position with > > > > once you start explaining. The pluralist > > view > > > > relies on not looking > > > > too deeply at what "the students" means, > > > > because once you do you see > > > > that it's either a mass, or the students > > > > individually. > > This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my point > of view, so the other must be defective in some > way. Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist > view is defective, the singularist is defective > in an exactly matching fashion (in this case > creating aentity that has no place in reality). What you just responded to wasn't so much an argument as a challenge. Fact is, explanations of how "bunch-together" differs from "mass" aren't really available. I attribute this to there being no explanation of "bunch-together" that is different from "mass". > > > > > > > > > > > > Show me how and what "the students" > > refers > > > > to. > > > > > > > > > > In the pluralist view, it does not refer > > to > > > > one thing. It refers to > > > > > many things, > > > > > i.e. the many students. > > > > > > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", I > > too > > > > am "referring to many things". > > > > > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you > > say > > > > "the students" does not > > > > mean that "the students" does not refer to > > a > > > > group of students. It > > > > does. > > > > > > By you, yes. By xorxes, no -- it is all > > about > > > the pictures in your head. > > > > > > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group > > of > > > > students. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I don't think that Lojban > > > > uses this mistaken concept of > > > > > > "plural predication": it seems that the > > > > book that describes it has not > > > > > > been published yet, and so Lojban > > predates > > > > it by about 20 years. > > > > > > > > > > That may be true. Is your argument then > > that > > > > conservatism requires > > > > > that we stick with the singularist view? > > (CLL > > > > does concede that pronouns > > > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or > > > > "masses" depending on context, > > > > > so even there one can find, at least in > > > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.) > > > > > > > > My argument here was that the burden of > > proof > > > > is on you to show that > > > > a) this pluralist view exists and is > > correct, > > > > > > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a > > number > > > of others going back to the late thirties). > > Is > > > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is > > the > > > usual singularist view, since they are the > > same > > > thing. > > > > > > > and b) that Lojban uses > > > > this pluralist view. Until you do this, you > > > > should not attempt to use > > > > this pluralist view in Lojban. > > > > > > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban > > uses > > > because we can't get inside Lojban's head. > > > Further, Lojban does not have devices for > > > expressing some crucial distinction in the > > > theory. > > > > Which distinctions? > > Primarily the difference between distributive and > collective predication. Even {loi} does not > appear to be just collective predication -- it > seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo > cases as well. And there are cases which cannot > be dealt with using gadri. Examples? I see no practical differences between corporate masses and regular masses, and I'm not familiar with Urgoo cases at all. Dividing things into special classes of masses isn't very useful. Yes, the components of water are usually more water, and yes, perhaps two car-makers together have the potential to be seen as a single car maker, while two bottles together would not be a single bottle. However, while this serves to explain what things can be seen as masses and which can't, it doesn't say anything about masses as they are. A mass is just a mass - who cares if you can split it up into more of the same or not? > > > > So the best thing to say is that Lojban > > > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but > > > sometimes does things that look like one, > > > sometime like the other. The proposal, > > stripped > > > of its picture thinking, is just to make > > Lojban > > > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of a > > > number of false starts and missteps that a > > > previous state of ignorance forced on us. > > > > My position is that if there was a state of > > ignorance before, it's > > being solved now by inducing a confusion, and > > then not thinking too > > deeply so that one does not see the problems. > > Well, that is polemics, not testable claims. Or, Sure. My arguments lie elsewhere. > if testable, then false, since the theory is > there before you (the one that is not easily > documentable is the singularist one, actually). It's difficult to document? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then what surrounds the building? > > Please > > > > give an explanation, > > > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to > > a > > > === message truncated === > <<> > > > > > > > > > Then what surrounds the building? Please > > > give an explanation, > > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a > > > vague 2-word answer. > > > > > > > > I'm afraid nothing further I might add will > > > change your mind. Luckily > > > > > > Why are you using the word "further" here? > The > > > only thing you've done > > > to change my mind is answer "the students" > when > > > I ask "what does 'the > > > students' refer to?". > > > > But that is a completely adequate answer. If > you > > don't see that, then it is unlikely that > anything > > else will work either. I would be inclined to > > have said that none of this matters, but that > is > > not going to be a point that works 200 some > > entries into the discussion. > > No, it's not an adequate answer. When you ask me > about my position, > "what does 'together the students' refer to?", or > "what does 'the > students (individually) refer to?", I can, and > have, given answers > that were much more elaborate than "together the > students" (aka > "mass") and "the students (individually)" (aka > "bunch-individually"), > respectively (though the answers were still a bit > crude). I could > potentially write pages of explanations of the > differences between the > two. Not so with "bunch-together". The best that > can be done with that > one is to call it by different names.>> > > But, of course, "bunch" (outside its technical > use) or "mass" or even "student individually" > also adds nothing to the discussion: it is a word > with (to a pluralist certainly) has not > significant content. "Mass"/"together" expands to "x1 is a mass with components x2". This is an actual relation. I consider that as significant in terms of content as you can get. > They, on the other hand, > would find oit odd that you cannot understand > such a straightforward English expression as "the > students" (especially since you seem to > understand te mysterious "the mass of students"). It's about as mysterious as "the building for students" - that is, not mysterious at all. "the students", on the other hand, is ambiguous: it can refer as in "the students wore hats" or "the students (as a mass) surrounded the building", and then, of course, there's also "the students (as a bunch-together) surrounded the building", which nobody has really explained or demonstrated as being different from "as a mass", though copious flat assertions of the sort have been made. > Note that, if you do write pages explaining the > differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a few > unifrom changes and provide you with the > explanation you want for the difference between > "the students individually" and "the students > together." Please, do it then! Do it with the crude paragraphs I've offered. What are you arguing this with me for, when simply demonstrating this would solve everything? > > > <<> > > > > > > for you, and for anyone else who prefers > the > > > singularist view, nothing > > > > in Lojban prevents you from putting that > view > > > into practice. If you are > > > > consistent with your view you simply won't > > > apply a distributive and a > > > > non-distributive predicate to the same > sumti, > > > you will always have > > > > to split your bridis in two in such cases. > > > This may make some things > > > > more cumbersome to express, and I see > nothing > > > gained by it, but it's > > > > always doable. > > > > > > Please show (a) and (b) before attempting to > > > use your pluralist view > > > in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the > > > singularist view.>> > > Why? It is not privileged until shown to be so > (which it cannot be, of course). Lojban is not > consistently either -- assuming we could tell > them apart. > > <<> As noted, Lojban's adherence to the > singularist > > view in detail is as open to exception as a > > pluralist view -- Lojban can't express either > one > > in any thorough way. > > > > > > > This brings us right back to: > > > > > > > > > > 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e > > > blabi} to refer to a white > > > > > dog and running cats, > > > > > > > > Right, because the animals that are running > > > are not the same animals > > > > that are white. In the case of the > students, > > > the people that are wearing the > > > > hats are the same people that are > surrounding > > > the building. If they were > > > > not the same people you could not use one > > > sumti for both predications. > > > > > > You're switching the meaning of "the > students" > > > in mid-sentence. The > > > thing that surrounds the building is one > thing. > > > > I wonder if this is really defensible. If you > > ask someone how many things are surrounding the > > building, I expect that the answer "Fifty > > students" will be more frequent than "One group > > of students." "A bunch of students" is also > very > > likely, but flat ambiguous, if you think > > singularist and pluralist are really different. > > If I ask someone what surrounds the building, > they'll answer "a bunch > of students" or "a group of students". "Bunch" > will be used in the > sense of "group", and not in the sense that we've > defined it for the > purposes of this conversation.>> > > You will no doubt take it that way; how are you > sure the speaker meant it that way or even that > he can sense the difference? Uh, because "bunch" doesn't have the definition that we've assigned it (for the sole purposes of this argument) in common use. Bunch is simply "group", with implications of the things being close together - "bunch of twigs", etc. If they said "the students surrounded the rope", then you might have an argument as to how it's meant. But if we say "the group of students surrounded the rope", then it's clear that we mean the *group* (of students), and not anything else. > > << I will less frequently get the answer > "fifty students", because it's seldom that people > miss the forest for > the trees, or in this case the crowd for each > student, and when I do > receive that answer, it'll be in the sense of > "fifty students > together".>> > > Precisely (though I am not so sure about your > statistics). They mean the 50 students together, > not something other than the students. You seem to think that "introducing" the entity of this student group is as odd as introducing the entity of a baboon. It's not. It's already in context. "The 50 students surrounded the building" and "the group of 50 students surrounded the building" are synonymous in meaning. It's just that one of them uses the word "group", which invokes a certain frame in your mind that the omission of the word wouldn't. > Forst are > just trees after all (with some exceptions like > willow forests which are apparently just one > tree). (I don't of course, really mean this. I > am just pointing out how useless taking what > someone says is in figuring out which of the > identical sides they are on. A forest is not the same thing as a set/"bunch" of trees, just as a human is not just a set/"bunch" of organs... just as a crowd surrounding a building is not just a set/"bunch" of students. > > <<> > > > The thing(s) that wear > > > hats are each something different. One thing > > > being composed of others > > > does not mean that it is the same as each > > > component part. > > > > And no one said it was. > > > > > I am composed of my organs. When I run, my > > > organs do not run. My > > > organs together (i.e. my body) runs. > > > > Even that is open to some question; bodies tend > > to be -- for purposes like running -- more than > > the sum of their parts (well, at least > different > > from). > > Right. They aren't a mathematical set, they're a > mass.>> > > More than that too, an organism. That is, the > organs in an organization. Without the > organization, the organs are just a pile of > specimens. That's what I mean when I say mass. I discussed this earlier using the example of a piece of graphite and a piece of wood not quite being a pencil. Search for the term "graphite" if you're interested. > I think you are making the case for a > body being a corporate entity, not either a msss > or a set. We haven't got that developed yet, but > it does not seem to say anything useful here -- > unless you want to say that the students > surrounding the building are also a corporation. Can you explain what you mean by "corporation"? To me, it seems like a needless taxonomy - how is a corporate mass different from other masses? > I don't think that need be the case and, if it > were, we would need a disvcussion different from > the one so far. > > <<> > > > > > > > > > and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni] cu > > > [dasni > > > > > lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer > > > to a number of students and > > > > > to a mass composed of students. > > > > > > > > Right, because the mass is not the > students, > > > so if you only allow singular > > > > reference, you can refer either to the one > > > mass of students or to each > > > > one student individually. > > > > But, of course, you can predicate of that mass > > distributively (or could if the language > > allowed). > > What do you mean? Once you've made a mass, it's > difficult to split it up.>> > > Set theory, which seems to be the model for talk > of masses, A mass is a relationship, it need not have anything to do with set theory. x1 is a mass of composite parts x2. > does indeed not allow direct > predication of members through predication of the > set. It does it indirectly, by inclusion and > perhaps some other relations. This is, of > course, just an accident of the way the language > of set theory was set up. As Lesniewski and now > pluralist logic show, the set up could be > different, making these distributive predications > easier (and more obvious). That is, splitting a > mass (in this sense) is merely a function of > language and can be changed witha change of > language. > > <<> > > > > But if you allow plural reference, then it > is > > > the very same students who > > > > wear the hats and surround the building. In > > > this case, the two predicates > > > > are predicated of the _same_ referents, and > > > so you can use one sumti to > > > > refer to them. > > > > > > What surrounds the building? > > > (The students.) > > > Does each student surround the building? > > > (No.) > > > Then what is it that surrounds the building? > > > (The students.) > > > So you mean the students together? > > > (No, the students.) > > > > Yes, the students together, not that is > anything > > other than the students; it is just a way that > > are predicated of > > > > > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I > > > understand your position > > > perfectly. You think that saying "the > students" > > > frees you from > > > implying that they're a group. I recognize > > > this, and I assert that > > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word > > > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the > > > students" does not mean that "the students" > > > does not refer to a group > > > of students.. > > > > Well, actually it does. At least it allows it. > > > > It does does not refer? What do you mean?>> > > I mean that using "the students" rather than "the > group of students" does mean that the "the > students" does not refer to a group. Ok, then if it's not connected to the act of "surrounding the building" by way of a group, then how is it connected? What is the relation? > Of course, > you can mean that equally well using "the group > of students," but it is harder to see. And, by > parity of reasoning (since the two are formally > identical) "the students" does refer to a group, > if you want to go that way, although it is clarer > if you say "the group of students." > What are formally identical? Thinking of them as a group and not thinking of them as a group? 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.