From pycyn@aol.com Sat May 27 15:11:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25481 invoked from network); 27 May 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 May 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r20.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.162) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 May 2000 22:11:18 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.7f.4e9eb83 (3958) for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 18:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7f.4e9eb83.2661a1f8@aol.com> Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:11:04 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] coi rodo - mi'e .aulun. To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2863 In a message dated 00-05-2, xorxes writes: << Chuang's argument is certainly better. If we ask a small child what do planes like to do, the answer will probably be that they like to fly. Even a child knows that the pleasure of planes is to fly, just like the pleasure of Chuang's fish is to dart about. That's what our feelings tell us! Hui might do better taking issue with Chuang's assumptions rather than with his source of knowledge. If he grants him that fish do take pleasure at anything, I don't see what is so strange to think that darting about would be it. More strange would be to think that they wouldn't be indulging their pleasure. > > An interesting analysis and one that is possible for Chuang but does not make much fun of Hui. I would take it -- on the basis of this English, anyhow -- that Chuang's win comes from his point that the original question was "HOW do you know?" and that that question only makes sense when it is agreed that "you" DO know. Hui made his mark by just that kind of playing around with presuppositions and less formal assumptions. <<{do na me mi} maybe. The lack of parallelism makes it more clear what is the flaw in the argument, which the formal parallelism of the Chinese expression perhaps helps to cloud.>> Well, on the assumption that there is a flaw in Hui's argument, which is not obvious. Notice that Chuang does not try to counter it, but returns to an earlier point. Is it a strange claim that you have to be a just like another person to really know what they think/feel? Chuang seems to accept it -- indeed insist on it -- but it is not a win for him, only a draw.