From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 02 07:03:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 14:03:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 70571 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 14:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:02:21 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.4d.122ab02a (3982) for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4d.122ab02a.28eb22e6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:02:14 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4d.122ab02a.28eb22e6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11278 --part1_4d.122ab02a.28eb22e6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/2001 10:55:00 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Well, yes, but is there any context at all where only the truth value > matters? I can't think of any. >=20 Well, one of the joys of logic is that any context defined simply by truth= =20 functional connectives (and quantifiers) is such. Now, in Lojban that cove= rs=20 a lot of ground, so most contexts will be do. The failures come because we= =20 covertly smuggle in (in the boring interest of having conversations amount = to=20 more than exercises in tautology) a mass of hidden intensional contexts,=20 mainly having to do with "information." So, in fact, taking that informati= on=20 into account, athere are not a lot of places where you can make the exchang= e.=20 But that does complicte matters a little more than the present question=20 requires. given >world.=A0 Clearly, looking for a heart (pump in the blood system) is=20 >different >from looking for a liver (filter in the blood system), But heart and liver don't have the same referent. You should compare looking for one with a heart and looking for one with a liver. Which would be the same if the be-hearted are the be-livered (using the transparent sense of 'looking for'). 'Being next to one with a heart' would be the same as 'being next to one with a liver'.> Yes, I shortcut a bit here -- going directly to how you would find out=20 whether something was a being with a [whichever], since the point was about= =20 the rule for doing that. The point being that the senses are different sinc= e=20 the rule tells to look for markedly different things. reason for this rule is that, without it, you get absurdities like moving >from "Jim believes that 2+2 =3D4,"=A0 to "Jim believes that Casaubon showe= d the >Smargdarine Tables were a third century pseudograph" on the grounds that=20 >they >are both true. Hopefully nobody wants to do that.> This is an extreme case to make a point. People do this sort of thing all= =20 the time, with disastrous results. That is why the rule is needed. See the= =20 old Orcutt (sp?) disputes.=20 <>The rule slows the errors down quite a bit.=A0 It is debatable >whether this means that {du'u ko'a broda} has a different extension from >{du'u ko'a brode} or whether it means that in some cases it is not the >extension but the intension that counts (I find the latter easier to deal >with). I the former. I don't like what the intensional contexts view does in Lojban to simple predications like "I'm looking for my umbrella".> Hopefully, whichever view you want to hold, Lojban will do the same thing=20 with this case and all others like it. Otherwise, wew will find ourselves= =20 claiming the existence of things that are only figments of overwrought (or= =20 underwrouhgt, come to that) imaginations -- the beauty who kissed me in my= =20 dream, for example. Just one of the things a logical language should preve= nt=20 (on one common view of what being a logical language means).=20=20 --part1_4d.122ab02a.28eb22e6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/1/2001 10:55:00 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambia= s@hotmail.com writes:

Well, yes, but is there a= ny context at all where only the truth value
matters? I can't think of any.

Well, one of the joys of logic is that any context defined simply by tr= uth functional connectives (and quantifiers) is such. Now, in Lojban = that covers a lot of ground, so most contexts will be do. The failure= s come because we covertly smuggle in (in the boring interest of having con= versations amount to more than exercises in tautology) a mass of hidden int= ensional contexts, mainly having to do with "information." So, in fac= t, taking that information into account, athere are not a lot of places whe= re you can make the exchange. But that does complicte matters a littl= e more than the present question requires.

<sense -- roughly the rule by which one determines its truth value i= n a=20
>given
>world.=A0 Clearly, looking for a heart (pump in the blood system) i= s=20
>different
>from looking for a liver (filter in the blood system),

But heart and liver don't have the same referent. You should
compare looking for one with a heart and looking for one with
a liver. Which would be the same if the be-hearted are the
be-livered (using the transparent sense of 'looking for').
'Being next to one with a heart' would be the same as 'being next
to one with a liver'.>
Yes, I shortcut a bit here -- going directly to how you would find out = whether something was a being with a [whichever], since the point was about= the rule for doing that. The point being that the senses are different sin= ce the rule tells to look for markedly different things.

<The
>reason for this rule is that, without it, you get absurdities like = moving
>from "Jim believes that 2+2 =3D4,"=A0 to "Jim believes that Casaubo= n showed the
>Smargdarine Tables were a third century pseudograph" on the grounds= that=20
>they
>are both true.

Hopefully nobody wants to do that.>

This is an extreme case to make a point. People do this sort of t= hing all the time, with disastrous results. That is why the rule is n= eeded. See the old Orcutt (sp?) disputes.=20

<>The rule slows the errors down quite a bit.=A0 It is debatable
>whether this means that {du'u ko'a broda} has a different extension= from
>{du'u ko'a brode} or whether it means that in some cases it is not = the
>extension but the intension that counts (I find the latter easier t= o deal
>with).

I the former. I don't like what the intensional contexts view
does in Lojban to simple predications like "I'm looking for my
umbrella".>

Hopefully, whichever view you want to hold, Lojban will do the same thi= ng with this case and all others like it. Otherwise, wew will find ou= rselves claiming the existence of things that are only figments of overwrou= ght (or underwrouhgt, come to that) imaginations -- the beauty who kissed m= e in my dream, for example. Just one of the things a logical language= should prevent (on one common view of what being a logical language means)= .

--part1_4d.122ab02a.28eb22e6_boundary--