From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri May 19 16:28:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 87937 invoked from network); 19 May 2006 23:28:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 May 2006 23:28:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2006 23:28:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhENK-0004S8-E5 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:27:18 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhELn-0004RR-VD; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhELM-0004R8-N5 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:16 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.205]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FhELJ-0004R0-C7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:16 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so808452nzc for ; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.42.10 with SMTP id p10mr2673145nzp; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2006 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:25:12 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060519133235.88207.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060519133235.88207.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11632 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "Maxim Katcharov" From: "Maxim Katcharov" Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=B_ZP-18lFDpbvUKi2nNei7MI1Mp_jwMKKG8dpZmsfs7TSslbtA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26050 On 5/19/06, John E Clifford wrote: > MK> > > < from > > individual to > > individual. >> [...] > > I think that this admission is a tactical > mistake. If the set of all bears (actual, > possible, past, present and future, etc.) varies > from person to person, then you have essentially > conceded xorxes' point. First, if every person > has such a set, then there is a maximal set which > embraces all of these (their union -- available The union of all of these bear sets is /not/ what I would call the "maximal set". The union of what I call this set is "everything" (as in including pencils), because surely there are crazy people out there who think/have thought that beds are bears, or that knives are bears. Perhaps the /average/ of these sets, and surely the /consensus/ of these sets would be the very closest we're ever going to come to this "*ideal* mega-set". > even for L-sets). Since, ex hypothesi, no one > actually has this as his set, then no one really > means ALL bears when he say {lo ro cribe}, only > "all the things I think of as bears." Further, There is no such thing as a universal set "all bears". There is only what is considered "all bears" by each person, and what may be considered "all bears" mutually by two people when they have changed (even in minor details) the bounds of their model of what constitutes a bear and reached a consensus. Each person has a model of something like the most ideal or typical bear, and then a certain tolerance to deviation - a certain bounds at which something is no longer a bear at all. My tolerance may be smaller than yours. My 'typical bear' may be a bit different than yours. This is simply a fact, and I'm not going to gloss over it by saying "there is one ideal of 'bear' that is based on the mind of no mortal". > once you allow that what counts as a bear varies > from person to person, you have to allow that for > each person it varies with time (as it clearly > does as the person grows in knowledge, but not > obviously only that). And once you do that, the > step to "it varies with the person's interests at > the time" is hardly a step at all. And then we > are at xorxes' place "all bears" is everything I > count as a bear at the moment. No, you've made a jump from "everything I consider a bear at the moment" to "those bears that I am referring to at the moment". Both can be expressed by the ambiguous "everything I count as a bear at the moment". xorxes' position is that "all bears must be accounted for..." refers not to *all* bears, but the bears in the X. Now, someone who says the above would still considers/counts/etc. a bear that is not in the X a bear - they're simply not referring to it. It doesn't "count" as a bear that they're *referring to*, but it still clearly counts as a bear. The vagueness that I've asserted exists is as follows: Let's say that a hunter shoots an abomination of some sort. It's a sort of bear-cat looking thing. The hunter may not consider this a bear. The forest ranger who comes by to check may consider this a bear. A lab showing that the parentage of this thing is two bears (but it was furless, skinny, and mutated) would give more insight to both parties. The hunter may still try to say "yeah, but that's not a /truly/ a bear", but odds are, this does fit his now-current perception of what a bear is (in fact, his perception/bounds probably didn't have to change, if 'through nature born of bears' was within his bounds). In that very contract, there's a definition of what a "cub" is. The definition of "child" is much more prone to having incompatible bounds. But they are the speaker, and they have set out exactly where /their/ bounds for "bear child" are. Now the listener knows where these bounds are - now they know the model that the speaker is using - so they really have no argument to make regarding "well, these are the bounds /I/ thought you were setting out". Anyway, point is, the argument is wrong because it fails to differentiate between "think truly is" and "am currently referring to as". To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.