Message-ID: <ec8285e60606110647x7636b8f9sbe02dcdd01665083@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:47:25 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20060610152846.92847.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ec8285e60606080331s3fd62c94vae5bb9bcdd635970@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060610152846.92847.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "Maxim Katcharov" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
Content-Length: 67300
Lines: 1983

On 6/10/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <<On 6/7/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/6/06, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> 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.>>
>
> Not exactly; participation is the flip side of
> doing things together.  In the usal case, wearing
> hats is done individually.  She might, however,
> particpate in a hat wearing demonstration, say,
> and do that by wearing a hat.  The comment was
> just to point out that you had incompletely
> specified the question, making an answer
> difficult.

lo tadni cu dasni
lo tadni cu sruri

Assuming that Alice is one of those tadni, she "participates" in both
of those. So explaining it in that manner doesn't explain anything,
unless you explain what "participates" means. I don't see how the
question is incompletely specified. I don't see how participation is
the "flip side" of doing things together.

>
> <<>
> > > > 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.>>
>
> Huh?  Which two – you offer three? Do please

which one of [a, b] [c] expands to.

> decide whether there is something besides the
> students involved here.  If there is an ontic
> group, then one line of chat is appropriate; if
> there is only the students considered in a
> certain way or some such locution, then another
> is.  In short, please finally give an explanation
> of what "a group of students" means in real terms
> (i.e., without falling back on the "group, mass,
> set,…" idioms, which are question-begging).

Think of a student in your mind. 1 concept. Now think of a mass of
kids that are putting away a mass of chairs. 2 concepts. A group is a
single thing - it's composed of many things, but seen together. Think
of a sports team. Do you think of each player individually? No. When
you look at a forest, do you think of every tree individually? No.
When you look at a crowd of people of sufficient size to surround a
building, do you think of every person individually? No. You think of
one thing, incidentally composed of players/trees/people.

>
> <<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.>>
>
> Depending on what it means, it is or is not, and
> the latter depending upon what theory you have of
> bunches.  It MAY mean just what "Alice
> participates in surrounding the building" (or

Useless, you'd have to explain how she participates, and that brings
us back full circle.

> "Alice is among the surrounders of the building")

Useless, she's among the wearers of hats too.

> means or it may say something about an entity (a
> mass, apparently)and that entity may be either a
> bunch in the technical sense or some other sort
> of entity.  If it is a bunch in the technical
> sense, then again it means the same as "Alice
> particpates in surrounding the building" or
> "Alice is one of the surrounders of the
> building."  If not, then it is just plain unclear
> what it means and so how it is related to the
> pluralist version.  Which is it?

Which is what? My theory of technical bunches is that they're always
predicated individually. And a "mass" is 1 entity, such that has
component part "Alice" (and another component part "Bryce" [...]).

>
> <<>
> > > > 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 particpation 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.)>>
>
> Well, it appears that Avery has no relation to
> the lifting of the piano, except, perhaps, for
> non-particpation.

Yes, none by your view. When you think about it, and force yourself to
abandon the idea of a "mass", Avery ends up floating somewhere out
there with no real relationship to what you were predicating about
ultimately him.

> Or is Avery the one directing
> – in which case he is, apparently, part of the
> mass that lifts it. Since you have yet to explain
> what a mass is in these cases, I am unsure what
> your intended answer is here. Alice's role in

Mass: one thing, with component part: Avery (including but not limited to).

> participation was just given, was Avery's? Your
> masses are beginning to sound a lot like the
> oldest definition of sets: "things considered
> together" (though, of course, you can't say
> that).

Sets are different. A set doesn't lift a piano.

>
> <<There is no real explanation>>
>
> Well, not from you anyhow – repetition is not
> explanation.

Repetition of explanation is. Every time I explain something, I find
that you require an additional explanation for seemingly obvious
things, things that you had no trouble grasping before. Why are you
asking me what a "mass" is? Or what a "group" is? It's been clear for
no doubt the last 30 messages, and I've elaborated upon it many times.
I've (repeatedly) expanded

  lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju

to

  [da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]

and I'm sure that you know what something like /that/ means.

  A is part of entity X
  X surrounds the building

It's a lot like

  A is nenri X
  X is on the ground

in terms of how the predication should be working.

>
> <<- 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.)>>
>
> What question about Alice is unanswered?  I have
> said in what her participation consists – as well
> as the participation of all the other involved.
> Will you now show me the mass that you say is
> involved?

Where? Can you repeat it here, or point me to where you've done this?

>
> <<>
> >
> > > > 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 their neighbor 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?>>
>
> Well, not really in the sense you mean it.  But,
> if you insist, then "being a part" here means
> "occupying one of the positions on the loop."

No, that's not what I insist on. Alice could stand on position X, then
walk away, and Bryce could stand on position Y, and then walk away,
etc., until we have 26 students who have stood on the requisite
positions. Will they have surrounded the building? No.

I'm curious as to the definition of "part" that you use. Perhaps you
could describe it? It would be helpful if also you gave the
relationship involved (e.g. "killer" is part of the relationship
"[killer] murders [victim]").

>
> <<> There are
> > problably more conditions 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 around 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).>>
>
> I don't use "over and above" in this sense.
> Sorry. By me, "over and above" is just an
> expression (taken over from acconting, I think)
> that means "in addition."
>
> <<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.>>
>
> Which I usually do when?

"...which one usually does..."

> When I am thinking of
> forests, I think of – and frequently see –
> forests.  When I am thinking of trees (as I did
> for several summers when I ran surveys for the
> Forest Service) I see trees – even in the midst
> of a multi-county national forest.  Are you
> saying, then, that there IS something over and
> above the components?   Well, again, 1) show it
> to me (and presumably as somehow different from
> the things together)

"Over and above" meaning "in addition to"? Yes, but it's not something
as strange as you seem to think.

It is the things "together". It is your assumption that "things,
together" is somehow different from "mass", not mine.

> and 2)(probably in the
> process) tell me about its formal properties.

Its formal properties are whatever properties it exhibits. What formal
properties does a fork have? How about a person? A squadron of fighter
planes? The solar system? A sports team? A rioting mob? It's not like
there's some formula to this. Each of those is a composite entity,
with certain components.

> I don't get the "in mind" notion: I can say
> "animal" and have a paradigm picture of an animal
> which happens to be a picture of a dog.  If I say
> "forest", my paradigm picture can't be of a
> single tree.  Because a single tree is not a case
> of a forest, though a dog is a case of an animal.
>  I can, of course, have a pine forest in mind or
> even a willow one (with associated problems)
> because they are cases of forests.  And the point
> of this is?  I can, of course, say "forest" when
> I have trees in mind, and "trees" when I have a

No, you can only say forest when you have trees in mind that are
component parts of the same forest. Just having (somehow) 1000 trees
in various locations in mind, which very clearly satisfies "trees",
will not usually satisfy "forest". "Trees" is a bunch, and you can't
help but treat each distributively; forest is mass, and you can't help
but treat it distributively too, it's just that it's composed of each
of that bunch of trees.

> forest in mind.  All of which proves (or suggests
> or illustrates) what?
>
> <<'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.>>
>
> Well, as usual now, "some kids" is not a
> predicate (and predicates aren't plural).  All
> that aside, what I take this to be aiming at
> saying is that, like averages, plurals are a
> convenient talking about a number of conveniently
> similar things (kids,say) and noting something
> common or collective about them without going
> into details.  We could, for example, go through
> the fifty students surrounding the building and
> say exactly what relevant thing each was doing
> (standing at angle 67.5 at a distance 5' 3" from
> the nearest surface, say) and then summing up by
> plotting the points on a map to show that they
> amounted to surrounding).

The points themselves don't add up to surrounding, and even doing it
at the same time doesn't add up to surrounding (or "reading"). It has
to be, aside from all that stuff, seen as an entity.

> We sum up by saying
> that they together surround the building.
> Similary, we could say exactly (well, as exactly
> as needed) what each of the twenty kids is doing.
>  Instead we sum up (maybe without even counting)
> "some kids", "a bunch of kids" etc. are doing
> whatever covers their various activities (enough
> for our purpose).  It is a special way of talking
> (I'd say two special ways, but that is a later
> matter) and so like averages in many ways.  We
> don't think that there is a person, the average
> man, separate the various men whose average was
> computed.

...obviously. The entity isn't some magical and contrived "man". The
entity is akin to "crowd". Look at a crowd of people, what do you see?
Each one of the people? No, you probably see a "crowd".

> Why then would we think there is a
> bunch of kids separate from the kids being summed
> up?  It is a figure of speech, as is – in another
> way – "together" and the like.  For all that,
> these figures have their own logic and, in this
> case, the logics are the same.
>
> <<> 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.>>
>
> I am indeed.  You can, of course, use masses or
> whatever, but you don't have to.  You can do the
> same work with just the things and the notions of
> distributive and collective predication (which
> you need anyhow to deal with {lo} and {lu'a}).

How do you need them anyway? Whatever collective predication is, if
not related to "mass", is not needed for my explanation of how Alice
fits into "the students surround the building" vs. "the students wear
hats".

Alice is component part of X
X surrounds the building

vs.

Alice wears a hat

> Have you looked at my stuff on the wiki about the
> logic of these expressions?  I forget the

I haven't. Could you link me?

> reference, but the index should bring it up
> pretty quickly (though it may be less detailed
> than I would now like, it being rather old – back
> to the earlier discussion of plural predication).
>
> <<> > > >
> > > > > 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.>>
>
> Nor was it meant to.  That – for a pluralist at
> least (and I think for a singularist as well) --
> is about predication, not reference.  For the
> rest, x is not a referent of y, it is, at best, a
> referent of whatever expression is used to refer
> to y (so "y" properly understood).  Alice is a
> referent of "the students" (or better, is among
> the satisfiers of "the students") but is not
> among "the students," rather is among the
> students (use-mention confusion).

Alright, then what is this "among" relationship that you speak of?

>
> <<>
> > > > 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".>>
>
> Alice is a member of the extension of "wears a
> hat," Alice is among a member of the extension of
> "surrounds the building." The members of an
> extension need not be single things but may be
> several things at once (plural predication).  I
> suspect (Hell, I am sure) that this is where your
> mind starts (and completes) to boggle: several
> things at once and yet not a set/group/mass! To
> which the answer is just, "Yup! That's the way it
> goes."

This is not an axiom. It's not apparent to everyone. So no, you can't
just say "Yup! That's the way it goes". You have to be able to explain
it, and explain how it affects relationships.

> On your side is the fact that those
> several things behave formally as if they were in
> an L-set.  On the pluralist's side, they get the
> same results without having anything other than
> the amongers involved. You can call it an
> implicit group, if you want to, but the pluralist
> is then justified in saying that you are making
> up extra things to no purpose whatever.

The problem with this is that these "extra things" are requisite. You
cannot explain how Alice relates to the surroundment in any other way
than

Alice is part of X
X surrounds the building

or at least none that you've demonstrated.

But that's so first-order! Yes, I guess it is. This sort of
predication is both simple and fundamental, and both of us know that
it works.

Now, we come upon a situation that is interesting. We have a phrase
like "the students surround the building". To explain this phrase, we
part ways:

I state that "the students" actually refers to "the students seen as a
mass" - that is, one entity, of which each student is a part. Your
objection to this is that we're introducing an extra entity. My
response is that the entity is already introduced, and regardless,
what's improper about doing that? This isn't like I'm introducing a
gorilla - I need no further information, aside from the students. And
this isn't, as you may assume, "well, I don't know what's really going
on, so I'll say that it means 'is a component part of y' because it's
the only thing that seems to make sense". No. This idea that many
students form something isn't alien. Words like "crowd", "mob", etc.
are all indicative that people can and consistently do see an entity
"beyond" just each of 100 people. Now, I still recognize the students,
in the same way I recognize "the table" in "the stones such that are
on the table", but the actual predication concerns what the students
are together - or viewed another way, what group the students are part
of (the one such that surrounds the building).

You state that "the students" is predicated as
"bunch-together"/non-distributively/etc. That is, it's not predicated
as a mass (though for some reason that's still a valid
interpretation), and each isn't predicated individually. My objection
is that you should be able to explain what the relationship is: I
explained it, in English, using established concepts (distributive
predication, the idea of "x1 is composed of entities x2"), and you
should be able to do the same to explain "bunch-together".

My position may seem bulky (though I assert that this bulkyness is due
to the framing associated with "mass"), but your position is
inexplicable. It's an argument from zen, if you will: "this is a
higher level of thinking about it. I don't need to give an explanation
of this. It just 'is', and that is all, what is not obvious?". I find
this both frustrating and absurd. Every explanation given so far has
had either one of the following qualities:

1) they make no distinction between pluralism or singularism. For
example, saying that Alice is a referent of "the students" in "the
students surround the building" is like saying that the difference
between a dog and a cat is that a dog is an animal. Or perhaps
defining a dog as "non-cat".  Alice just as much is a referent of "the
students" in "the students wore hats", and she 'participates' in both
relationships (the word 'participates' needs to be explained). In
short, explanations are just other names. What's a dog? A hound.
What's a hound? A canine. What's a canine? A dog.

2) they are highly indicative of the group relationship that I support.

I'm actually not too certain that I've encountered (2).

>
> <<> 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 supply 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.>>
>
> It doesn't say there is no mass.  It just says
> everything that mass talk does but without ever
> using masses.  But you, by the way, were the one
> that said they were the same (OK, you said they
> were not different).

(They are the same. "So, no, not the same [by your standards]" )

You don't mention the word, but the concept is certainly used. It's as
if to say that "is" is not mentioned in "that's", so aha!, we can say
everything that "that is" says without mentioning "is", since we have
this surely completely different concept of "that's". Sure, you may
argue that "that's" is quite different. It is, after all: you could
see it, if you wanted to, as another way to express "that is" - this
is the very reason that some people fail to properly use an
apostrophe. However, the concept invoked is the same.

Neither of us can prove that our positions are correct, because no
complete and tried theory of how the mind works is available. The best
we can do is point out flaws in each other's explanations. You seem to
agree with mine, but I disagree with yours. My disagreement stems from
how no explanation not fitting (1) or (2) has been provided by you.
When asked for explanations, you simply assert "that's how it is", as
if this were simple predication, or the existence of a relationship
called "gives", or "a +b = b + a", which are things that we could all
agree on -- this of course seems to be after I've indicated that your
several given explanations were unhelpful, since they fit (1) or (2).

>
>
> <<> > > > > 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".>>
>
> If you talk that way, of course it does.  But you
> don't have to talk that way to describe the
> situation pointed to by "the students surrounded
> the building."

Sure, you don't have to use the words "mass" or "group", and all the
bulk attached to those two. But you still use those concepts. People
are capable of and do use them constantly, and they're a perfectly
reasonable expansion (as in "that is" from "that's").

>
> <<> > 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 suggests 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.>>
>
> The salesperson makes a sale as a component of
> the corporation, she gets the flu on her own (why
> do you think I put the "acting as such" bit in?).

The very definition of "acting as such" is based on if it affects the
corporation or not. If she represented the corporation fully, and,
say, got the flu while talking to a client - but no, this doesn't
matter, because she's only "acting as such" if the entire corporation
is seen to have done it with her.

> The only points about corporations is that 1)
> they have a different logic from masses as most
> commnly (I think) understood and yet 2) they are
> still thought (at least sometimes) to be
> represented by {loi} expressions.  I am not
> really categorizing masses but rather {loi}
> expressions, which are habitually called
> mass-expressions.  As far as I am concerned,
> corporations are not masses at all: that have a
> totally different logic.

What sort of different logic?

>
>
> <<These things are details, and are not critical
> to the concept of a mass.>>
>
> Agreed.  Except for contrast – what is and is not
> a mass – of course.
>
> <<> 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}.>>
>
> Quite right; it ceases to be A dog and becomes
> just Dog (as in "I got Dog all over my steam
> roller").

No, I wouldn't call it Dog. I would see no "dog" in a mass of bloody
mush, though I would, if the damage was not too great, or if I knew
that the mush was once a dog, see "pu dog", {lo pu gerku} - or even
"that which was Dog", {lu'o pu lo ro gerku} (?) (that which in the
past was a part of the mass of all dogness).

> I think that this Urgoo case can be
> solved in Lojban as "a mass of bits of dogs" but
> I don't see any consensus on that yet.

Well, not bits of dogs. But "mass of all dogs" seems right.

>
>
> <<> So far as I can tell, Urgoo is like
> > corporations in some respects: it remains the
> > same even if its representations change, it
> > inherits  properties 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.>>
>
> As noted above, {loi spisa be lo gerku} or so.
> But clearly not a mental form, since disgusting
> concrete and external.
>
> <<> I think these
> > two are enough 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.>>
>
> What raw level; I am just making it within the
> category of things expressed by {loi} phrases.

I'm saying that if you want to say "dog", you can say "animal"
instead. You don't need to say what kind of animal it is each time.
This assumes that a corporate mass is really just a mass.

>
>
> <<>
> > "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?>>
>
> Well, exactly in the sense part of sensible: I
> can see the students but I don't see something
> else, the group, but just the students together.

"The students together" seems to be a very pure/unburdened form of
group/mass/etc.

> Show me the group or explain what it means in
> neutral terms. (It is not necessarily wrong, by
> the way, but it is presented in a way that makes
> it look wrong – and may actually be misusing it
> to be wrong).

When someone says "the trees are burning", you don't think that each
tree is burning. You simply think of a bunch of trees, and you treat
them collectively, as one entity. The entity is burning.

>
> <<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.>>
>
> What do the two of them mean.  I have said what
> the first means; does the second mean something
> different?  If not, then we arre arguing about
> nothing (as we are, of course); if yes, then that
> way.

If they're the same, then though you may not have the same concepts
come up in your brain when you say them, you use the same single
concept, as in between "that's" and "that is".

> I am on the one hand, not sure how you
> think English frames and pragmatics comes into
> and, on the other, what else you would expect to
> come into it.

"That's" and "that is" use the same concept. If someone were to say
that they were different, it would only be in terms of framing or
pragmatics (of course, those two don't differ so much in framing or
pragmatics). Likewise, "the students" and "the group of students" use
the same concept when used in "-- surround the building". A difference
of language - of the English language.

>
> <<>
> > <<> They, on the other hand,
> > > would find it 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>>
>
> That just repeats that there is a mass here.

Yeah.

> Since no one has pointed to one, you need to show
> us where it is or what claiming there is one
> comes down to in reality.  The existence of a
> mass is the crucial one but you just assume it
> (question-begging).

That's beside my point. You wanted a feasible explanation of my
singularist handling of "the students surround", and I gave you one.
Anyway, in response:

Sure, but you assume the non-existence in the exact same manner.

I've stated that a) people can and constantly do think of 100 students
as a thing called a crowd (for example) and b) that this
interpretation makes "the students surround" perfectly sensible, and
*explicable*.

You have not given a sensible interpretation of what "the students"
means in the surrounding example. You've agreed with mine, that they
'could' be seen as a mass, but said that they don't have to be. Well,
what the heck else could they be seen as? "Together"? Yeah, that's a
synonym for "as a mass/in a group" - what else could it be? Can you
explain this other thing that it could be, instead of just alluding to
it?

>
>
> <<I don't think that I need to prove that such a
> thing as "a
> relationship between certain things" exists.>>
>
> Well, of course relationships between certain
> things exist, indeed there is at least one
> relationship between any two things.  But ewhat
> does that have to do with the issue at hand,
> which is not about relationships but about
> masses.
>
> <<> 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.  Please 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?>>
>
> A mass is not a relationship.

What do you want me to say, "A mass is anyt...hing composed of
component parts"? I'm sorry, but it seems that the idea of a mass
having component parts needs to be mentioned. That's what a mass is.
Strictly, no, it's not a relationship - nothing is really a
relationship.

> What you cite is
> the relationship between a mass and its
> components, which, obviously, presupposes that
> there is a mass to begin with.

Right. That masses exist. Where did I say that I was talking about a
mass formed of those students? No - that the relationship exists. That
it's possible for me to say "X is a mass formed of component parts Y".

Here's what you asked:

> > Please 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.

Yes? Yes. So here's my explanation for my understanding of a mass:

Alice is part of X
X surrounds the building

or

graphite-rod (component part) is part of pencil (mass/composite entity)
pencil is on the table.

Am I assuming masses? Yes. I "assume" them because this relationship
actually exists. I almost expect you to argue that there is no such
thing as anything that is a mass, or anything that is a component part
of a mass. Hopefully you won't.

> What is it – and

A mass. Some people call it a crowd. Other people call it "the
students". Whatever you want to call it, it's the (one) thing that
surrounds the building.

> where is it in the situation of studnets around a
> building.

What's the semantic difference between "the mass of students
surrounded the building" and "the students surrounded the building"?
One of them treats it like a mass... and the other one doesn't? It's
not enough to describe a "right hand" as "not a left hand". What does
the other one treat them as?

> As for predicate relatioships, that
> seems another issue altogeher but I agree that
> they exist, for whatever that is worth here.
>
> <<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?>>
>
> Sure, as soon as you give the explanation.

I've offered it many times. You seem to disagree with it, but I have
offered it. I disagree with yours because you haven't offered it.

You can very well give the explanation concurrently, I'm really not
interested in carrying on an argument of "you first". If it pleases
you, pretend that I've failed to offer an explanation, and go on with
offering yours.

> By
> the way, if you have problems with doing that,
> you might try just revising slightly the
> explanation of "the students together."  The
> ideas are clear; the problem is whether these
> things have any relevance to the situation at
> hand.
>
>
> <<> > 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,>>
>
> Well, as a pluralist, I am not bringing anything
> at all: there are just the students – and the
> building, of course.

General "you", as in "one really doesn't bring 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 don't think I have "mass" loaded – or indeed,
> except a figure of speech – have it at all.

So you aren't capable of recognizing that a pencil is a mass of
graphite and wood? Or what do you call that, a thing that is made up
of other things?

>
> <<> 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:>>
>
> Nothing out there called a bunch.

...so there's something out there? This is my position, not yours.
Surely you don't mean that there is something out there, which is the
students together, but not called a "bunch" or "mass" etc.

>
> <<Alice is ? ? ?
> ? surrounds the building.
> where "?" stands for "magic happens here".>>
>
> I have already filled in the question marks for
> the pluralist view; what is the similar filling
> for the singularists.

Where?

You mean she participates in the surrounding of the building? Uh, no,
she participates in the wearing of hats too, etc.

When I ask you to explain, I don't mean "use explanations that I've
already shown to be inappropriate for legitimate reasons".

>
> <<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.
>
> Calling it rational does not not make it
> intelligible or accurate.  I have, as noted
> several time now, provided the alternative (well,
> not an alternative, since you haven't provided a
> the first yet, and also because I suspect yours
> will turn out to be about the same).

Alice is part of X
X surrounds the building

Graphite is a part of this pencil
This pencil is on the desk


This isn't a demonstrative example? It's not accurate? Intelligible?

>
> <<>
> >
> > <<If they said "the students surrounded the
> > 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?>>
>
> I can imagine all sorts of things, but I don't
> perceive one as necessarily there.

When I tell you "I saw a group in the street", you can't perceive that?

>
> <<>  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).>>
>
> Well, there are other definitions and some of
> them sound quite like what I mean.  It does occur
> to me, howver, that your "group of students" is
> not "students together," but just "students"
> plural.

No. It's "a group".

> I can say "a group of students are
> wearing green hats"  (or "a bunch" or "a crowd",
> etc., though not "a mass").  So maybe you, too,
> mean only to stress the plurality, rather than
> the togetherness, the collectivity.  That would
> make it harder to align with the pluralistic
> collective, but should make an exposition of what
> you mean rather easy.
>
>
> <<"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?>>
>
> Well, if that just means she is one of the
> students doing it, then "Yes." The problem is
> that you sometimes talk as though it means
> something more and it is that more that I am
> trying to get you to explain.

There is no more.

Alice is part of the mass/group that surrounds the building.

That's all. Just the concept that together the students are something
that they are not on their own.

> If you are saying
> there is nothing more, than (aside from the
> irritation that the expression "group" or
> whatever causes) there is no problem.
>
> <<>
> > > Forests 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
> > something that hold them all together, a common
> > interest in 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?>>
>
> Between a forest and a bunch of tree, a human and
> a bunch of organs, a crowd surroiunding a
> building and a bunch of people – those were the
> things you just said were not the same.

You're asking me what the difference is between those. I'm asking you,
the difference between what?

>
> <<> > 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.>>
>
> I thought you just said that there were not many
> types of masses.

No, I said that it's useless to care about the types, just like it's
useless to care about what every animal could be when thinking of
naming the concept of "animal".

> My point is that, in
> Lojbanology, "mass" gets used for a number of
> different concepts ("animal" presumably does not,
> for, while there are many kinds of animals, they
> are all animals under the same difeinition.  That
> does not appear to be the case with masses (in
> the Lojban usage)).

A corporate mass is still a mass, and a reducible-to-same or
combineable-to-same mass is still a mass, just like a dog is an
animal, and so is a cat.

>
> <<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.>>
>
> This makes the term "mass" – already rather
> attentuated in Lojban – virtually useless.

How so

> That
> is why I suggested another term for what seemed
> to me a minute  ago a rther specific meaning.  I
> gather that that appearance was misleading and
> you reallywant something as muddled – indeed,
> more so – as Lojban usage. Water is a mass in the
> mass-noun sense – continuous, individualized only
> by portination, etc.  You are a mass presumably
> in the sense that you have components that fit
> into a organizational scheme.  Other things are
> masses in other ways (though usually in this
> latest one too).  A crowd is a mass in the sense
> that it has components that are joined together
> to do some thing (make a noise, in this case).
> And so on (as noted, Lojban mass includes all
> these in various ways).

Everything is a mass. The utility of "mass" lies in being able to
refer to it by its component parts, or in describing what component
parts something is made of.

>
> <<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.>>
>
> Only because "mass" has become so completely
> broad as to make no useful distinctions at all.

A mass made up of "those students" is different from a mass made up of
"these metals". I consider that a useful distinction. What kind of
distinction did you expect to have?

> Go ahead and use the term if you want, but don't
> be surpised if you get thoroughly misunderstood
> as a result.  Or give the term a more specific
> meaning and thus help to make your point (there
> is a point here somewhere, isn't there?) clearly.
>
> <<> But in any case, I don't see
> > how this helps with the students: they do not
> > compose an 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?>>
>
> Huh?  1000 people together would be a crowd
> usually, especially if they are doing something
> that needs the lot of them.  "Crowd" is also a
> way to refer to 1000 people (or more or less) who
> are just milling about, perhaps with no common
> goals or activities at all (I don't generally
> refer to conceptualizations, just to people –
> certainly with the word "crowd" or "people").
> And I don't see what you use of "loaded" does
> here.

Think of a fork. Sense how there's an instance of a fork in your mind
now? Hold up your hand. Sense how there's a (rather specific) instance
of a hand in your mind now? That's what I mean by "loaded" - I have no
better word for it.

>
>
> <<> They each fall
> > into a place in a pattern which we are taking
> as
> > significant and by virtue of which say they are
> > together.  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,
> > since we seem to agree on everything except
> what
> > words to use and that is merely a matter of
> 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.>>
>
> I do deny that the concept of mass is used in
> pluralistic predication; that is sort of the
> definition of that kind of predication.  The
> whole semantics just does with individuals, no
> masses, etc. at all (You can look back at the
> couple of expositions I've given here or at the
> wiki on Bunches).  I am not arguing that the
> concept of mass (whichever one you want – here I
> suppose the one that does what the pluralist says
> is done by things together) does not exist.  I
> merely ask you to explain what it means to say
> that it does certain things.  I have said what it
> means for the students together to surround a
> building; what does it mean for a group of
> students to surround a building?  You were

It means that x1, which could presumably be called a crowd if you
wanted to refer to it directly, surrounds the building. The students
are parts of x1.

> claiming that only this latter locution is
> legitimate (or, at least, that it is the more
> accurate locution); my response is to say that,
> so afar as you have shown, it is not yet even an
> intelligible locution and to suggest that, when
> it is made intelligible, it will turn out to be
> the same as the mean just the same as the
> "together" locution.

What is your "together" locution?

> As you said in a different
> context, this is less an argument than a
> challenge, although the challenge is within the
> frame about whether group talk is intellible and
> more correct than the alternative.  Occasionally
> you say something that sounds like saying that
> you recognize tht the two locutions say the same
> thing, but then you seem to go back to the
> position that only one of them is correct – an
> odd combination, so I suppose they are two
> separate points.

This is because my interpretation is

Alice is part of X
X surrounds the building

Sometimes, you seem to agree. Other times, you assert that there is no
X, and do this

Alice ?? ? ?? ??
?? ? ? surrounds the building

and then you offer explanations like this:

Alice ? ^ & ??
?# ? ? surrounds the building

or like this:

Alice
surrounds the building (yes, well she wears hats too...)

I need you to fill those places in with things that we can both agree exist.

>
> <<> > 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?>>
>
> I'm not sure; as I noted, your use of "mass" has
> become rather diffuse (it seeems to me).  The
> point is tht {gunma} stands pretty clearly only
> for the most specific kinds of {loi} expressions,
> what I would characterize as cases of collective
> predication, attribution to the whole rather than
> to the components separately.  You seem to mean
> rather more than this (I may be wrong, of course,
> the going is rather rough back there).
>
> <<> 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.>>
>
> As noted, this makes the notion of a mass
> virtually useless for present purposes:
> explaining how a mass of students surrounds a
> building.

Er, /how/ a mass surrounds a building? Well, a mass is an entity, so I
guess the answer is "in any way that would lead us to believe that
that entity is surrounding the building".

It's like asking for an explanation of Alice surrounds the (thing that
was a) pancake that she ate earlier. She just "does". "First order"
relationships don't really need explanations, I hope.

> The fact (if it is one) that each
> student is also a mass and the building one, too
> shed no useful light.  If the point of this is to
> convince me there are masses, I never have denied
> that and so this chat is irrelevant.  If the
> point is somehow to show how masses are involved
> in surrounding a building, it has so far failed,
> largely because no effort has been made to get
> behind masses to what is going on in mre neutral
> terms.

Ok, let's call the thing that the students are together a "srowak". A
srowak surrounds the building. The srowak is composed of students.
Does that make it better, or?

>
> <<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.>>
>
> Now this is just confusing (confused?).  No one
> denies that entities with parts exist; as you
> say, I am one. I take it that you think that
> "students" refers to such an entity rather than
> to several entities (the individual students, the
> putative parts of your entity).

Right

> I am not even
> denying that such an entity can exist; I am
> merely asking what it means to say that it
> surrounds a building.

I don't know. It's an entity, and it surrounds this other entity. It
surrounds in the same way that a former pancake can be surrounded, in
the same way that a ring surrounds something.

> As a pluralist, I don't
> have to acknowledge that it exists or that it
> surrounds a building, since I can account for
> students surrounding a building without it.

I've been asking you for an explanation of how you account for this,
you haven't yet provided one.

> From
> that point of view, I can wonder what it would
> mean to say that a mass is surrounding a building
> and ask you to explain in terms that I
> understand.

A fork exists as a fork only through us recognizing the relationship.
A crowd exists in the same way. What's the nature of "calamity"? A
"mass" is much more flexible. When something can be said to be a part
of something - one action being part of another larger action, an
event being part of..., the pull between two molecules being part
of... - that's the "composite entity - composite part" relationship.

> I have explained what "the students
> together surrounded the building" means in terms
> I assume you can understand, since the
> explanation contained no troublesome words like
> "together" or "set."

Where?

> I invite you to do likewise
> (or point out what about my explanation you don't
> understand so that I can readjust it to your
> apprehension).  Then we can examine whether there
> is any reason to think that only your locution
> involving masses is correct or whether only the
> together version is correct or whether they are
> equally correectr and maybe even identitical
> behind the forms.

The "together" version is my version. "As part of a group/mass" is how
I use the word together.

>
> <<> 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".>>
>
> I am not sure Alice is appropriate for {morna2},
> she isn't a part of the pattern, after all, but
> occupies a place in that pattern, an x2.  And, in
> general, what surrounds the building is not the
> pattern but things in that pattern.

A pattern isn't a schematic. Arrange some tiles in a certain way, and
it's not the places where the tiles are that form a pattern, but the
tiles being where they are that forms it.

>
> <<>
> > <<> 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?>>
>
> Well, no.  The original says nothing about Alice
> being in the group.  As long as you don't mean
> anything ontic about it, I don't immediately see
> anything objectionable about {da poi sruri lo
> dinju cu gunma lo tadni}, however; it is
> roundabout but apparently equivalent.  It is not,
> note, a privileged form, more correct than some
> other,

Well, the crux is that I am not aware of any other explanation.

> nor does it constitute an explanation of
> the original (except, perhaps, for someone who
> heretofore spoke only in metaphysical
> periphrasis).  But more to the point, that these
> two are equivalent is a hypothesis of mine (well,
> I know it holds for formal systems, the issue is
> whether it holds in normal language).

Good, because that's my hypothesis also (though perhaps in a different
sense), but I have to ask, how can they be equivalent if they do not
explain each other, if they aren't interchangeable?

> It needs
> to be demonstrated and to do that we need to know
> what "A group of students surrounded the
> building" means in the way that we know what "The
> students together surrounded the building" means.
>  We can then compare. Clearly, if the existence
> of an entity, group of students, distinct from
> the students is essential to this notion, an
> irreducible factor, then they cannot be
> equivalent.  But that will leave us with the
> problem of whether there is in this situation any
> such entity.  A straightforward count of the
> factors involved in fifty students surrounding a
> building turns up 51 – the students and the
> building, not either 52 (an added group) nor 2 (a
> group and a building).  What can convince us to
> change this count?
>

Are "the students together" the same as any of student 1, student 2, [...]?


>
>
>
> 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.
>
>


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.