From pycyn@aol.com Fri Oct 12 12:03:23 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0); 12 Oct 2001 19:03:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 54607 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2001 18:26:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 12 Oct 2001 18:26:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2001 18:26:40 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
	by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.99.1c0aee9a (4232)
	 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <99.1c0aee9a.28f88fd3@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:26:27 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_99.1c0aee9a.28f88fd3_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11537

           
--part1_99.1c0aee9a.28f88fd3_boundary 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 10/12/2001 12:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


> It seems to me that {ce'u} ought to be analysable as an unevaluated
> {ma kau}, btw.
>=20

I think there will be scope problems here.  What does "unevaluated" mean in=
=20
this context?  As bound variables, they are all inherently unevaluated.

<I'm not sure what you mean by "adequate"; certainly we can't do
without having a way to represent intensional forms of beliefs,
but at the same time I think we can't do without having a way
to represent extensional forms of beliefs, and I don't readily
see the snag: what's wrong with saying "the truth conditions of
p are blahblahblah and John believes p"?>

OK, and that will be helpful for deciding whether John's belief is true or=
=20
not, but does nothing to help the problem -- which I thouhgt was the one yo=
u=20
were on -- of connecting what John believes with some other propositions th=
at=20
you can work on more easily.  For this task, no amount of truth-condition=20
information will complete the task, even if, ala xorxes, you know that both=
=20
propositions are answers to the question.

<> But your approach still does not get over the extension-intension=20
> gap.=A0 You just know extensional equivalence and that says nought=20
> about intensional anything (well, if they are not extensionally=20
> equivalent, they are not intensionally either).=A0=20

I agree (I think -- I can't ever be sure we understand one
another right) that my approach says nought about intensional
anything. But I don't see that as a problem.>

Then I guess I don't understand what you are trying to do.  Most of what I=
=20
have seen from you looked to be trying to rewrite what John believes in ter=
ms=20
of the extension of some property and John's beliefs about that extension,=
=20
based on the extensional eqquivalence between the proposition which John=20
believes and a certain proposition about the extension of the property.  Bu=
t=20
those rewrites are not generally legitimate and in the cases given clearly=
=20
are not.

<I don't understand everything you say, but I had taken it as one of
the strengths of the xorxesian set-of-answers approach that it isn't
intensional (or so I understood).>

I don't know quite what "xorxes' system is not intensional" means.  He has =
a=20
set of answers better, a property "is an answer to..." and a number of=20
propositions that meet that property), within that set the answers can be=20
pretty much reduced to the model answers (just like the question with the k=
au=20
words replaced) on extensional grounds, but the various answers, even all t=
he=20
true model ones, are still intensionally distinct.

<So, to reply to what you say, I think the "and nobody else" is
implied by an answer that is understood to be exhaustive.>

That claim is vague enough to avoid any objection I could think of.  On the=
=20
other hand, taken in its simplest sense, it is often false.  The eharer may=
=20
take the speaker's stopping for a exhaustive completion, the speaker may on=
ly=20
intend an exhausted run out of patient or memory.  I would like a "and nobo=
dy=20
else" explicit before I bet even the chicken coop.
=20=20




           
--part1_99.1c0aee9a.28f88fd3_boundary 
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 10/12/2001 12:15:29 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@=
dtn.ntl.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">It seems to me that {ce'u=
} ought to be analysable as an unevaluated
<BR>{ma kau}, btw.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I think there will be scope problems here. &nbsp;What does "unevaluated=
" mean in this context? &nbsp;As bound variables, they are all inherently u=
nevaluated.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I'm not sure what you mean by "adequate"; certainly we can't do
<BR>without having a way to represent intensional forms of beliefs,
<BR>but at the same time I think we can't do without having a way
<BR>to represent extensional forms of beliefs, and I don't readily
<BR>see the snag: what's wrong with saying "the truth conditions of
<BR>p are blahblahblah and John believes p"?&gt;
<BR>
<BR>OK, and that will be helpful for deciding whether John's belief is true=
 or not, but does nothing to help the problem -- which I thouhgt was the on=
e you were on -- of connecting what John believes with some other propositi=
ons that you can work on more easily. &nbsp;For this task, no amount of tru=
th-condition information will complete the task, even if, ala xorxes, you k=
now that both propositions are answers to the question.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&gt; But your approach still does not get over the extension-intens=
ion=20
<BR>&gt; gap.=A0 You just know extensional equivalence and that says nought=
=20
<BR>&gt; about intensional anything (well, if they are not extensionally=20
<BR>&gt; equivalent, they are not intensionally either).=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I agree (I think -- I can't ever be sure we understand one
<BR>another right) that my approach says nought about intensional
<BR>anything. But I don't see that as a problem.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Then I guess I don't understand what you are trying to do. &nbsp;Most o=
f what I have seen from you looked to be trying to rewrite what John believ=
es in terms of the extension of some property and John's beliefs about that=
 extension, based on the extensional eqquivalence between the proposition w=
hich John believes and a certain proposition about the extension of the pro=
perty. &nbsp;But those rewrites are not generally legitimate and in the cas=
es given clearly are not.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;I don't understand everything you say, but I had taken it as one of
<BR>the strengths of the xorxesian set-of-answers approach that it isn't
<BR>intensional (or so I understood).&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I don't know quite what "xorxes' system is not intensional" means. &nbs=
p;He has a set of answers better, a property "is an answer to..." and a num=
ber of propositions that meet that property), within that set the answers c=
an be pretty much reduced to the model answers (just like the question with=
 the kau words replaced) on extensional grounds, but the various answers, e=
ven all the true model ones, are still intensionally distinct.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;So, to reply to what you say, I think the "and nobody else" is
<BR>implied by an answer that is understood to be exhaustive.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>That claim is vague enough to avoid any objection I could think of. &nb=
sp;On the other hand, taken in its simplest sense, it is often false. &nbsp=
;The eharer may take the speaker's stopping for a exhaustive completion, th=
e speaker may only intend an exhausted run out of patient or memory. &nbsp;=
I would like a "and nobody else" explicit before I bet even the chicken coo=
p.
<BR> &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
           
--part1_99.1c0aee9a.28f88fd3_boundary--