Date:  Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:41:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801082341.SAA12142@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: knowledge and belief
X-To:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas=22?="
              <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <U16081.884191951@UICVM>
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4377
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan  8 18:41:59 1998
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>cu'u la stivn
>>I share your puzzlement about the x4 place of <djuno>, perhaps for a
>>related reason. The source of my struggle with <djuno> is that when the X4
>>place is elided, the implicit criteria for judging the truth of a bridi
>>containing <djuno> is unclear, at least to me.
>
>But why is it any less clear than the implicit criteria for judging the
>truth
>of any other statement? Suppose I say:
>
>                    la lojbab jinvi le du'u la djan klama le zarci
>                    Lojbab thinks that John goes to the market.
>
>How do you determine whether that is true or not? Do you need
>telepathy in order to read lojbab's mind? If lojbab's saying so is
>enough for you to believe that he thinks so, then why is it not
>enough for you to believe that he knows it? (Provided that the
>additional requirement for djuno is met, i.e. that you are
>satisfied that John really is going to the market.)

This use of <jinvi> implies a 3rd person omniscient author, which is common
in novels. Unlike <djuno>, it does not imply to me that lojbab (who is not
a 3rd person omniscient author) has access to the internal thought
processes of John.

>
>The x4 of djuno is not a set of criteria for judging whether the djuno
>statement is true, at least not directly. It would be a criteria by which
>the x2 of djuno is true. The relationship between the x2 and x4 of
>djuno is akin to that between the x1 and x2 of jetnu.

You've lost me. I don't see what the difference is between "judging whether
the <djuno> statement is true" and "a criteria by which the x2 of <djuno>
is true".
>
>>I have suggested that it be
>>the nearest epistemology, which led to my suggestion that <djuno>ing what
>>someone else <djuno>s would have to be telepathy, for that would be the
>>most plausible extrapolation of my idea of what <djuno> means.
>
>Most plausible in what sense? If someone tells me that they know that
>someone else knows something, telepathy would not be the first thing
>that comes to my mind as to how do they know it.

Most plausible in the sense that this is what seemed obvious to me. I am
speaking solely of my own attempt to decode what this statement means. If
someone says in English:

"That lemon-flavored dog in the sugargum tree is wired for cable."

I form an understanding of the sentence which is the most plausible meaning
of the sentence; in some cases the most plausible meaning of the sentence
is not a very plausible description of the universe.

>
>><krici>
>>seems better than djuno for describing knowing what someone knows, but
>>perhaps I'm overly influenced by colloquial English in this regard. Perhaps
>>Mark's suggestion that "schema" as an alternative to "epistemology" would
>>resolve this confusion about <djuno>, as this would be closer to what you
>>suggest could go in the x4 place.
>
>Did I suggest anything for that place? I said I didn't know what goes there.
>I said that lojbab's {le nu krici} and {le nu viska} strike me as odd for
>that
>place.

I was referring to <le nu krici> and <le nu viska>, which lojbab suggested.

>
>>This would gloss as an English "because"
>>clause:
>>
>><la xorxes djuno le du'u la stivn djuno le du'u makau cmene la xorxes kei
>>fo le nu xorxes viska>
>>"Jorge knows that Steven knows Jorge's name because Jorge has seen (it)."
>
>You need an additional kei, otherwise the epistemology is for your
>knowledge rather than for mine.

This was intentional. Is it wrong?

>
>><le mi bersa cu djuno le du'u la santas cu zasti kei fo le nu mi cusku>
>>"My son knows that Santa exists because I said (it)."
>>
>>Does that seem reasonable?
>
>I don't know. Do you find these reasonable:
>
>    le du'u la stivn djuno le du'u makau cmene la xorxes cu jetnu le nu la
>xorxes viska
>    That Steven knows Jorge's name is true because Jorge has seen it.
>
>   le du'u la santas cu zasti cu jetnu le nu mi cusku
>   That Santa exists is true because I said it.
>
>If those don't work as epistemologies for {jetnu}, why should they work
>as epistemologies for {djuno}?

Maybe they do. If the x4 place of <djuno> can be <le nu viska>, then I see
no reason that the x2 place of <jetnu> can't be <le nu viska> But it is not
clear to me how <djuno> differs from <krici>.

-Steven


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