From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Mar 20 11:32:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 20 Mar 2001 19:32:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 26088 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2001 19:32:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Mar 2001 19:32:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Mar 2001 19:32:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2KJXOl02155 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:33:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:33:24 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: krici (was: Knowledge (was: Random lojban questions/annoyances In-Reply-To: <33.1231f8d0.27e8d946@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6071 On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/20/2001 1:34:20 AM Central Standard Time, > xod@sixgirls.org writes: > > > <> > > > > > > Not in English nor (under {sruma}) in Lojban. > > Damn.=A0 We're back on different pages.> > > To what was I referring? I forget! Please don't cut away so much text!> > > It was not perfectly clear, but I took it to be: > <>The alternate view (why I said, "if taken literally"), is that, in any > > discussion of an epistemological sort, some beliefs are to be taken as > > established for the present discussion (justification for them is not t= o be > > asked for) and these can then be used to justify the items at issue.=A0= > > > assertion that "a belief without any evidence never occurs", I won't.> > > Again, it is not clear which point you mean, especially since none of the= m > seem to support your assertion. One point was that some beliefs have cau= ses > but no evidence, another was that among those causes are other beliefs > (typically about how to identify certain experiences), which are also not > evidence. Well, you cut the text away again! I can't refresh my memory! Please, take it easier with the snipping and cutting! I believe you were telling me how beliefs are based on evidence, and evidence is always informational. And even if a belief is triggered by sense data, it gets combined with some information before it generates a belief. Well, this supports my assertion that "a belief without any evidence never occurs". If you're willing to accept subliminal, unspoken, and trivial "facts" as evidence for beliefs, then I'm home free. For instance, the proposition that "If I see an insect fly through the air, it's really there". Furthermore, the English in the definition of krici is not clear if it uses technical meaning of "evidence", not the common one. Commonly, sense d= ata is taken as "evidence" for a belief. For instance - belief in UFOs because I saw 2 of them, or belief that a fly landed on my arm because I felt and saw it land there. In conclusion: Using the common English definition of "evidence" (sense data or information), there is never any belief without evidence. Using the technical epistemological definition of "evidence" (propositions), which includes subliminal "obvious facts", there is never any belief without evidence. The gismu "krici" is meaningless and should be ignored. ----- "The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give man something with which to compare himself; and he had created man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.