From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:27:03 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3509 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:27:01 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 08:10:26 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa25343; 21 Jun 95 9:10 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0641; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:34:05 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1984; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:34:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:35:25 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: ears and legs X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210910.aa25343@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >> In English, let us say one person asks "I am looking for >> a man, a woman and a child. Can you see them?" If you can see only the >> man's ear and leg, but have other evidence (e.g. voices) that tell you >> that the others are present, you might indeed be considered to answer >> truthfully if you say "Yes, I see them." > >But you wouldn't say "I see two of tham" if what you see is the man's >ear and leg, would you? You might if "emergent properties" of the mass of two are present. Imagine two people are lost in the woods, and you have reason to believe they might be together. You know one is wearing a bright blue garment. You and others are looking, and you spot through the underbrush, something bright blue and appropriately sized moving. You might yell to the others "I see them", even though you actually have not seen any piece of any person, but merely the garment of one of the people, and even though you don't actually know that the second person is with the blue-garbed one. The bright-blueness is an emergent visually-detectable property of the mass of the two people in that we can attribute it to the mass even though it is really a property of one indivdual. It happens to stem from a property of only one component of the mass. On the other hand, if you found a trail of blood, and tracks of one of the two people, you would not say that you saw "them" and probably not "signs of them" if there was an absence of indication of the second person. On the other hand, you would not say "I see them" if you saw nothing and heard both of their cries for help. %^) lojbab