From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Sun Mar 18 19:32:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 19 Mar 2001 03:32:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 95472 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2001 03:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Mar 2001 03:32:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2001 04:33:20 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA18816 for lojban@onelist.com; Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:39:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:39:04 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances Message-ID: <20010318223903.V3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@onelist.com References: <20010318201236.R3953@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from xod@sixgirls.org on Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 07:51:54PM -0500 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5948 On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 07:51:54PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:56:15AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > > > la camgusmis cusku di'e > > > >It would be likely to provoke the response "But Robin _doesn't_ live > > > >in Australia", but that just makes the knowledge inaccurate; it's no > > > >less knowledge for being wrong. > > > > > > Both statements would provoke that response? Would you really > > > say "John knows that I live in Australia" as comfortably as > > > "John is convinced that I live in Australia"? I find it hard > > > to believe, but what else can I say? > > > > Hrmmm... > > > > Probably not, no. But I absolutely would say "John knows that I live in > > Australia" if the intention was to enjoy the confused look on my > > listener's faces as they process it (i.e. for comic effect). 8) > > > > Which, umm, supports your point more than mine, I suppose. 8) > > > > I believe you are a Koala bear. > Steve believes you are a Koala bear. > > I know you are a Koala bear. > Steve knows are you a Koala bear. > > > "Belief" is a fact, regardless of the truth of the statement. "Know", > however, is relative to the beliefs of the speaker. If I, like Steve, > think you are a Koala Bear, I validate his belief by saying "Steve knows > are you a Koala bear.". But if I don't agree with Steve, I downgrade his > belief from the level of knowledge, and say "Steve believes you are a > Koala bear.". In practice, yep, I'm with you. > Hence, the English "know" reflects the beliefs of every speaker that > transmits the fact. Do we want this rather strange, intransitive (?) > behavior in Lojban too? I'm not answering that question until and unless someone tells me how having djuno require truth would work in practice. Given: la stiv djuno le du'u do cribe and assuming you are not a (Koala) bear, how do you correct the speaker, since the speaker has, by definition, stated a truth, since djuno can only talk about truths! And what if you hear Steve say: mi djuno le du'u do cribe how do you correct him? And once you've done so, since djuno only talks about facts, does that mean that Steve can no longer say mi pu djuno le du'u do cribe And if he can't say that, that would be rather disturbing, since it's certainly _true_ that he used to know that; he stated his knowledge earlier! sRobin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP