From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 24 08:32:57 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 24 Oct 2000 15:32:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 14679 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2000 15:32:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Oct 2000 15:32:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r19.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2000 15:32:54 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id a.98.bb3b745 (4073) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:32:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <98.bb3b745.27270598@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:32:40 EDT
Subject: RE^n+2: literalism
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4675

xod:
<<You seem to be saying that, although a racoon can be described in a finite
number of words, as can the "black cat" be described by two, a racoon is a
new concept whereas the black cat is not, because the number of words to
describe racoon is unwieldy.>>
Not what I meant to be saying, in any case.  Can a raccoon be
adequately described in a finite number of words if none of these
words changes its meaning in the course of being used in the
description?  Maybe, but then we already had a broad meaning for
all of those words, such that raccoon was alrady a possibility
inherent in them and so not a new concept after all. 
I thought all this was a trivial point, that a *new* concept was a concept we 
did not
already have, but apparently everyone else understands it differently.

I'm not sure that the discussion has gone on beyond its natural limits, since 
the unclarities and confusions seem to remain, but conducting it in Lojban 
would slow it down a bit, I imagine.