From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 08 02:26:24 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoGmB-0007As-G4 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:26:03 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FoGm5-0007AY-7N for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:26:03 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so582060pye for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:25:54 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nQ8OK1zUcol31Z5hngAqzLLeIT53xWB1sWngsdrVtQd/eaUlVQbNpX8iuUXeUwisrQTu0y6Pc+hKQx4xVTWo8AhJhuuMa1wB+ohzLMGnEETJ6unCAyOr2EZPhaTIG66uo+Cn9iiKkpm6edoGNtH6GLTf+fRc1lRJPaDmfKhAyqI= Received: by 10.35.93.19 with SMTP id v19mr667286pyl; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.39.13 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2006 02:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:25:54 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060607171742.26039.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060607171742.26039.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11761 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 6/7/06, John E Clifford wrote: > --- Maxim Katcharov > wrote: > > > On 6/6/06, John E Clifford > > wrote: > > > Well, I suppose that Alice's relation > > surrounding > > > the building (when she is one of the students > > > surrounding the building)is "participation." > > I > > > > Participation in an event? xorxes already > > offered this. Consider "the > > students surround the students". What is Alice > > participating in? > > Well, is Alice among the surrounding or the > surrounded? Those seem to be the two events in > which she could participate. In the one case she > is (more or less) on the outside looking in, in > the other on the inside looking out. Sure, I guess. I don't think that this helps much in terms of explaining it, though. She participates in the wearing of hats too, after all. > > > > suppose that giving it a name is not going to > > > satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out > > the > > > formal specifications of the relation, you > > will > > > just say "Oh, that's just membership in the > > > group." > > > > Yes, that's exactly what I'll say, because > > that's exactly what it is. > > It's a mistake to think that masses can only be > > physical lumps of > > something. For example, 1000 people can be > > foolish each (by gathering > > fools together, and inciting them each to do > > foolish things), or > > together they can "participate" in a > > large-scale foolishness, without > > being foolish each. What this is saying is that > > they're component > > parts of an action, the action of being > > foolish. Same thing, different > > perspective, still a mass. > > This is beginning to look like your sense of > "mass" or "group" or whatever is less about the > things involved and more about what they are > involved in. That is dangerously close to making > the distinction between distributive and > collective predication but in (as in Lojban) > misleading terms. It's equally about things involved and what they're involved in. But in the end, it's the thing that the students compose that does the surrounding, and not the students themselves. I don't care which one of lo gunma be [le tadni] cu sruri lo dinju [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni] lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju expands to, and I see the difference between the two. Perhaps you could make this disinction between "distributivity" and "non-distributivity" in a way that (usefully!) explains what relation Alice has to the surroundment of the building? The way I see it, [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [la alis] "alice is part of that which surrounds the building" or "alice is part of the surroundment of the building" I think that that's perfectly reasonable. > > > > Or if I try to specify it in extension, > > > spelling out how she particpates (standing > > NEbyN > > > of the building at the same time as others > > are > > > standing at the other points of the compass, > > say) > > > you will relate that to being a member of the > > > group as well. > > > > Well, yes. This is the method of participation. > > For example, I can say > > "together the three men lifted the piano, by > > method of one man > > directing, and two men bearing". > > This tells me what each does by way of > participating, but I still don't see anything > like a group here unless it is just the fact of > the perticpation being described in some > organized way. And that is just what a pluralist > would mean by "together," more or less. What lifts the piano? The three men, right? What relation does Avery have to the lifting of the piano then, if he doesn't lift it himself, and he's not part of the mass that lifts it? (This is the same thing as with Alice, and the things that should be noted there should be noted here.) There is no real explanation - none that I can think of, and none that you've provided (correct me if I'm wrong). Yes, I can see how, intuitively, one may think of it that way, but there are a lot of things that we sense intuitively that are wrong. In order to understand it, I need an explanation. This isn't an axiom we're talking about here. You should be able to explain it. (By it, I mean my question about Alice.) > > > > > To which I can only say > > > "Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist > > > languages are two different ways of stating > > the > > > same facts. > > > > Not quite. The pluralist view asserts that you > > don't introduce masses. > > Instead, there's a special "bunch-together" (or > > something - it hasn't > > exactly been elaborated upon) that supposedly > > handles the questions > > raised by the removal of "mass". > > Well, you haven't introduced any masses yet > either (aside from assuring me that they are > there). Back to the students around the > building. Each student occupies a place wrt the > building and other students, roughly (let's say) > that if simultaneously each student joined hands > with thei neighgbor on each side the result would > be a closed loop and the footpad of the building > (and little else?) is entirely inside the loop. > The way I am reading the claim, I think it > requires that each student intends to be part of > surrounding the building, but there are other > readings which don't demand that. "part" implies being part of something to me. Does it not to you? > There are > problably more consitions but this seems to me to > be the essential one. The "together" of the > pluralist is just the fact that this pattern > requires all the students involved (which is > trivial) and perhaps that with many fewer > students similar patterns (that formed closed > loops arounf the building) are not possible -- > certainly that no one student can form such a > pattern. Does the groupiness consist of anything > other than this? You've already said it is not a > thing over and above the students, so that the You have the two "over and above"s confused. One refers to a thing that something is by nature of being what it is (a dog is an animal, since dogs are animals by nature). The other refers to things that are aggeregates of other things. "Forest" being over and above "trees" is different from "animal" being over and above "dog". You can say "animal" when you have a dog in mind, but you can't say "forest" (or "grove") unless you have a forest (or grove) in mind - which you usually do, assuming that there are more than 6-10 trees. It's not very often that someone gives you a specific answer when more than X things are involved (X being perhaps 10ish). "What's going on there?" "Some kids are carrying a bunch of chairs to the garden". But "some kids" is clearly some sort of special plural predication, since you don't mention the words "mass" or "group"! No, it isn't. The average human will think of, say, a group of 20 kids massively, and won't actually summon-to-mind 20 instances of "kid". "Some kids" in this case refers to a mass of kids. > students form a pattern seems to be the most > obvious next choice. But that, of course, means > that for reality, it just says what the pluralist > says but in differnt words. If it is something > else, that you need to say what and demonstrate > that it really is there. It seems that the > pluralist says "there are these students and they > form this pattern" and the singularist says > "there is this pattern and the students for it" > Why this stife there be/'twixt Tweedle-Dum and > Tweedle-Dee? My position is that you need an at least implicit group/mass, so that you can expand (i.e. explain using more axiomic terms) things like "lu'o" or "loi". You seem to be contrary to this. > > > > > > > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications > > of > > > > being "among a group such that". > > Well, of course it would; you are a believing > singularist. For a pluralist, "x is among y" > just means that x is one of the ys. x is a referent of ys. Yes. But even for a pluralist, Alice is also a referent of/among "the students (wearing hats)". Again, this doesn't say anything of the difference between distributive/non-distributive. > > > > And so it does -- when used by a singularist. > > > When used by a pluralist, it doesn't. But > > the > > > properties of "among" are the same for both. > > > > But in the pluralist view, there's still a > > group there, you just don't > > choose to acknowledge it, right? > > Where? Go through the whole pluralist semantics > and nothing like a group turns up, just things, > one or several as the case may be. At the end of > it all, it is hard to say where the > unacknowledged group might be. Ok, then use these pluralist semantics to (usefully!) explain the relationship between Alice and "surrounds a building", as opposed to Alice and "wear hats". > What you just responded to wasn't so much an > argument as a challenge. > Fact is, explanations of how "bunch-together" > differs from "mass" > aren't really available. I attribute this to > there being no > explanation of "bunch-together" that is different > from "mass".>> > > I attribute it to the fact that there is no > difference except verbiage. You seem to think > that the mass form the explanation is right and > the the other wrong, which is odd if they are the > same explanation. However, this is all empty, > since we have neither explanation at hand yet (I > have tried to suply one but I don't know whether > you will buy it). They're not the same explanation. One says that there is no mass: Go through the whole pluralist semantics and nothing like a group turns up, just things, one or several as the case may be. Right? So, no, not the same. > > > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", > I > > > too > > > > > am "referring to many things".>> > > I agree, but you seem to think that you are > actually referring to one thing, the group. At > least you talk that way. Yes. That, or I'm saying "the students are [part of a group such that that group surrounds the building]". Doesn't matter which, but both involve "group"/"mass". > > collective predication. Even {loi} does not > > appear to be just collective predication -- it > > seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo > > cases as well. And there are cases which > cannot > > be dealt with using gadri.>> > > Examples? I see no practical differences between > corporate masses and > regular masses, and I'm not familiar with Urgoo > cases at all. >> > > Corporate masses (I don't much like that > terminology since it sugtgests more similarity > than I think justified)continue to be the same > even with a change of components; they also > inherit properties from their components > directly: if a component (acting as such) does or > is something, the corporation does or is, too. This seems to have more to do with the details of when a person stops calling something a mass. I don't think that we need to categorize every mass into a certain type of mass in order to use them. As for doing something, and having the corporation do it too, this too I think has to do with unimportant details. It's not a fixed rule. To give an example (that's perhaps more similar than justified), if a salesperson makes a sale, the corporation makes a sale, but if that salesperson gets the flu, the corporation doesn't have the flu. It's not perfecly certain how each thing works out. These things are details, and are not critical to the concept of a mass. > Corporations also have properties in which some > components do not participate. I suppose there > are other charateristics but these are enough to > separate then from ordinary (collective > predication) masses. Urgoo is the stuff of which > some kind of thing is made: all dogs are chunks > of Dog, for example -- as are dog organs and the > mixture that results from a steamroller rolling > over a pack of dogs. This is an actual mass-noun > concept. Well, if your conception of "dog" extends to that, then sure. For me, something stops being a dog when it gets rolled over - it becomes "paste formed from a dog corpse". I'd still say "that dog has been squished", or "we'll bury the dog", but it would be in the sense of {lo pu gerku}, and not {lo ca gerku}. > So far as I can tell, Urgoo is like > corporations in some respects: it remains the > same even if its representations change, it > inherits propeties from its manifestations. It > differs in that it is homogenous, does not have > components, although the manifestations play a > somewhat similar role, but an Urgoo can exist > without any manifestations at all. This is like an ideal mental form of something, that all things that are it are composed of: {loi ro gerku}, or something of the sort. > I think these > two are enoguh different to justify some separate > consideration but both have been folded into the > muddle that is CLL mass. I don't think that the distinction of corporate vs. non-corporate entities needs to be made on such a raw level. > > "Mass"/"together" expands to "x1 is a mass with > components x2". This > is an actual relation. I consider that as > significant in terms of > content as you can get.>> > > But you offer no evidence that it applies here. > "Together" is a real situation as well and I have > offered an explanation of what it means in > different terms. What does "is a mass composed > of" mean in different, neutral, terms. Failing > that we are just talking by one another, since we > are using language radically differently. The evidence is a sensible explanation of what "the students surround the building" means: "the students are part of a group that surrounds the building". Is that wrong? How is it wrong? How is "the students surround the building" different from "the group of students surrounds the building"? Actually different, and not in terms of English frames or English pragmatics. > > <<> They, on the other hand, > > would find oit odd that you cannot understand > > such a straightforward English expression as > "the > > students" (especially since you seem to > > understand the mysterious "the mass of > students"). > > It's about as mysterious as "the building for > students" - that is, not > mysterious at all. "the students", on the other > hand, is ambiguous: it > can refer as in "the students wore hats" or "the > students (as a mass) > surrounded the building", and then, of course, > there's also "the > students (as a bunch-together) surrounded the > building", which nobody > has really explained or demonstrated as being > different from "as a > mass", though copious flat assertions of the sort > have been made.>> > > But you, of course, have nowhere demonstrated > that "as a mass" is different from "together" > nor explained what it meant. You have asserted I've explained many times what it meant. "together the students surround the building" : X is a mass, and each student is a component part of that mass X surrounds the building the students are part of a mass such that surrounds the building I don't think that I need to prove that such a thing as "a relationship between certain things" exists. > it is superior, but that is just your say-so. On > the other hand, if you really believe, as you > seem to be saying here, that the two expressions > mean the same thing, what is the argument all > about? > > > <<> Note that, if you do write pages explaining > the > > differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a > few > > uniform changes and provide you with the > > explanation you want for the difference between > > "the students individually" and "the students > > together." > > Please, do it then! Do it with the crude > paragraphs I've offered. What > are you arguing this with me for, when simply > demonstrating this would > solve everything?>> > > Gladly. Pleas provide the explanation for the > mass-talk form. Note, this will require saying > it without assuming masses or giving a fairly > complete formal system for masses. A mass is a relationship like any other. Do you deny that such a relationship ("x1 is a mass/aggregate/composition of x2 / x2 is a component part of x1") exists? Do you deny that such a thing as a (predicate) relationship exists? I'm using perfectly established structures, in English or otherwise, to do the explaining of how Alice relates. Predicate relationships, and the idea of "x1 is a composite of component parts x2". Both are established in both our minds, right? You did say "Gladly". Could you now do this? > > You will no doubt take it that way; how are you > > sure the speaker meant it that way or even that > > he can sense the difference? > > Uh, because "bunch" doesn't have the definition > that we've assigned it > (for the sole purposes of this argument) in > common use. Bunch is > simply "group", with implications of the things > being close together - > "bunch of twigs", etc.>> > > Well, it does seem to have that meaning in my > dialect. That is, when I say "a bunch of things" > I am not implying that there is anything other > than those things there (not even necessarily > close together). As I've said, you make it seem like I'm bringing in the concept of a baboon to explain away this thing. You really aren't bringing in anything new, because your mind probably has "mass of 20 students" 'loaded' (though of course, the pragmatic implications of "mass" and all the 'framing' that "mass" entails are not loaded), because humans don't usually like to 'load' each of 20 students when they don't have to. "Mass of students, 20 component parts" is good enough for most people. > I presumably have some reason > for dealing with them together but that is > nothing "out there" called "bunch," it is just > how I am dealing with them. So there isn't anything out there? Or just nothing out there called bunch? Because if there isn't anything out there, I can't imagine you explaining what Alice's relationship is. With humor, I imagine something like: Alice is ? ? ? ? surrounds the building. where "?" stands for "magic happens here". Well, it's not magic. The "rational explanation", if you will, is that Alice is part of a mass/group, the mass/group that surrounds the building. If you have a different rational explanation, then please offer it. > > > < rope", then you might have > an argument as to how it's meant. But if we say > "the group of students > surrounded the rope", then it's clear that we > mean the *group* (of > students), and not anything else.>> > > Not clear at all, since I don't see any group > there, just students. When I say "the *group* of students", you can't imagine a group? > If you mean "the group of > students" to say, in different words, just what > "the students together" says -- that is, without No, "the students together" in your mind for some reason can't have the same meaning as it does for me and the dictionary (1. In or into a single group, mass, or place), it seems. We don't say the same things, because your variant excludes any possibility of "mass" in order to describe the relationship (it seems). > "The 50 students surrounded the building" and > "the group of 50 > students surrounded the building" are synonymous > in meaning. It's just > that one of them uses the word "group", which > invokes a certain frame > in your mind that the omission of the word > wouldn't.>> > > Then what the Hell is this argument about? One > person talks one way, the other the other, as > their taste leads them. And, of course, that is > just what the formalism says: whether you give a > pluralist or singularist interpretation to the > system, the logic is the same. Ok, then you should have no problem telling me: In "the students surround the building", Alice is part of the mass/group that surrounds the building. Of course, we don't have the same imagery invoked in our mind as is typically associated with English "mass" or "group", but yes, it's a mass/group regardless. So when I say "the students surrounded the building", I mean that Alice is part of a mass such that surrounds the building. Same goes for Bryce, Carol, David, etc. Right? > > > Forst are > > just trees after all (with some exceptions like > > willow forests which are apparently just one > > tree). (I don't of course, really mean this. I > > am just pointing out how useless taking what > > someone says is in figuring out which of the > > identical sides they are on. > > A forest is not the same thing as a set/"bunch" > of trees, just as a > human is not just a set/"bunch" of organs... just > as a crowd > surrounding a building is not just a set/"bunch" > of students.>> > > And the difference is...? I suppose it is > somethign that hold them all together, a common > interest them. that is something about us > usually, although it is often helped by > propinquity and short-chain causation and the > like. The difference between what? A tree and a forest? A person and a crowd? > > More than that too, an organism. That is, the > > organs in an organization. Without the > > organization, the organs are just a pile of > > specimens. > > That's what I mean when I say mass. I discussed > this earlier using the > example of a piece of graphite and a piece of > wood not quite being a > pencil. Search for the term "graphite" if you're > interested.>> > > Ah, that was the point of that story. It was not > very clear to me at the time. Your use of the > term "mass" is adding yet another meaning to that > already overworked word; can we find another word > for you concept. It's not an overworked concept in the same way that "animal" is not an overworked concept, because there are so many types of animals. Water, which can be combined or reduced into more water is a mass. I'm a mass. Just about everything is a mass. A crowd that makes noise is a mass, even if some people in it are quiet. Or even if all people in it are (relatively) quiet. If you want to taxonomize and label all of these different things that a mass can exhibit, or when certain masses stop being masses, or if you can combine certain masses to form a mass that is considered to be the same thing as the two masses were, go ahead. But it's still a mass. > But in any case, I don't see > how this helps with the students: they do not > compose and organism or an organic whole, and > maybe not even an organization. If 1000 people together do not compose a "crowd", then what is a "crowd"? Just a way to refer to the 1000 conceptualizations of people that you have "loaded" into your mind? Even if the crowd starts doing things that none of the people do on their own? > They each fall > into a place in a pattern which we are taking as > significant and by virtue of which say they are > togethre. Is it also by virtue of this that we > say they are a mass? If not, what is involved? > If so, why are we having this argument (or, more > accurately, what the Hell are we arguing about, > sinc we see to agree on everything except what > words to use and that is merely a matter os style > and not open to argumentation). Well, at first you seemed to deny that the concept of mass was used in plural predication, but now you seem to deny that the concept of mass (or group) exists at all. So that's what we seem to be arguing about. > > Set theory, which seems to be the model for > talk > > of masses, > > A mass is a relationship, it need not have > anything to do with set > theory. x1 is a mass of composite parts x2.>> > > Huh!? There is a relationship of composition that > defines a mass, but a mass is not a relationship > (notice, by the way, that {gunma} is not a mass > of the sort you descibed earlier). Is not mass of what sort? > It may also be > that the fact that things stand in a certain > relationship to one another is what gets them > into the mass, but the mass is not that > relationship either. All (?) things (physical things, especially) are masses. Maybe the strings of string theory aren't a mass, but everything else, we've found it to be a mass. Tiny things, arranged pencil-wise, form a pencil. Can everything be broken down into something else? Is everything composed of something else? Yes. The argument isn't really about this (I hope). It's about whether or not an entity with parts:students can exist. I say that it can, and frequently does. And I also say that this entity is the thing that surrounds the building. > Ok, then if it's not connected to the act of > "surrounding the > building" by way of a group, then how is it > connected? What is the > relation?>> > > Directly by each of them taking a place in a > pattern which constitutes surrounding the > building. You may call "taking a place" "forming > a group" but there is no necessity in doing so. > Ok, sure, that's another sensible way to think of it. [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu morna [la alis] x3 can even be "surrounding-the-building-wise". > > <<> Of course, > > you can mean that equally well using "the group > > of students," but it is harder to see. And, by > > parity of reasoning (since the two are formally > > identical) "the students" does refer to a > group, > > if you want to go that way, although it is > clearer > > if you say "the group of students." > > > > What are formally identical? Thinking of them as > a group and not > thinking of them as a group?>> > > Well, thinking of them as a group and thinking of > them as acting together. > Sure. So [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [la alis] is a correct/complete way to express your pluralist "lo tadni cu sruri lo dinju", right? 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.