Date:  Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:41:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712312041.PAA11230@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Knowledge & Belief
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1149
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 31 15:41:42 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>At 1997-12-31 09:13, Steven Belknap wrote:
>
>><la stivn djuno le du'u la xorxes djuno le du'u la lojbab klama le zarci
>>kei fo da>
>>
>>"Steven knows that Jorge knows that Lojbab goes to the store."
>>
>>The above statement is always false, which considerably limits its utility.
>>I am asserting that it is not possible to directly know that some else
>>knows something.
>
>Are you drawing a distinction between 'know' and 'directly know'?

"know" is an English word with multiple meanings. <djuno> is a lojban word.
I am talking about <djuno>, not "know".

>It what
>sense is it not possible to know that someone else knows something, but
>it is possible to know that someone else does something? Bear in mind
>that in both cases, 'knowledge' is mediated through imperfect senses.
>
>In any case, your definition of 'know' is at variance with the standard
>one, with which it certainly is possible to "know" that someone knows
>something. Go ask anyone on the street.
>
True. Again, "know" is an English word.


Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria