Date:  Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:42:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711271542.KAA27561@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean?
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2377
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 27 10:42:52 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lojbab:
> >So "re nu broda" is just as nonsensical as "re ka broda" and
> >"re du`u broda".
>
> It does not seem nonsensical to me.
>
> re nu broda cu fasnu
> seems to mean
> pa nu broda cu reroi fasnu

It doesn't. Not if nu is an event-type (defined by whether
its tokens make it the case that broda}.
The latter makes sense, but the former claims that there are
two distinct event-types defined by exactly the same criteria.

> >I can buy this characterization of {lo}, but I think we must
> >recognize that it makes no sense to say {mi viska lo nu broda}.
> >One can't see an abstract entity.
>
> "Seeing" is a process that involves the brain, which is capable of
> distilling abstraactions from thesensory stimuli.  In fact, we don't actually
> talk about the sensory stimuli that we really "see".  "*I see X photons of
> Y Hertz impinging on my retina at an angle of Z".

and Geoff wrote:
> In philosophy of science, at least, it is commonly recognised that
> observation differs from bare perception in that observation is
> theory-laden; that is, it can involve inferences drawn from the sets
> of sense-data that one gathers through perception.

I don't dispute this. But the question remains: are abstract things
seeable (or observable)? If so, then how?

> Maybe it is that the nu abstraction itself is the type, but the x1 of
> the
> prediucate is a token/instantiation of the type (whether or not that token
> "occurs" in reality or potentiality).  Does that help any?

If you really think this then on this point you agree with
me & Jorge, and your position becomes inconsistent.

> >Also, it makes sense to say {mi nitcu lo nu broda} if and only
> >if it does not make sense to say {mi nitcu lo fasnu}
>
> Since the statement "lo nu broda cu fasnu" works, then lo nu broda and lo
> fasnu have identical features semantically.

Come on! That's bollocks. "lo nanmu cu remna" works, but "lo nanmu"
and "lo remna" don't have identical features.

> It is a syllogism that
> lo nu broda cu fasnu
> mi nitcu lo fasnu
> =>mi nitcu lo nu broda

No it isn't. It's more bollocks.

     A president of the USA is from Arkansas.
     I met someone from Arkansas.
     Therefore I met a president of the USA.

I think you're suffering from Having-to-answer-too-much-email-in-
too-little-time Syndrome. Either that or I'm being even more
cerebrally flatulent than usual.

--And