Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 35503 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2006 15:36:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
  by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2006 15:36:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134)
  by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2006 15:35:49 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <lojban-out@lojban.org>)
	id 1Fp5QI-0000kS-Ep
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:30:50 -0700
Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org>)
	id 1Fp5Or-0000jT-3q; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:29:25 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1Fp5OP-0000jA-6P	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:28:53 -0700
Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120])	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>)	id 1Fp5OL-0000j3-K2	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:28:53 -0700
Received: (qmail 92849 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jun 2006 15:28:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20060610152846.92847.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [70.230.175.169] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:28:46 PDT
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ec8285e60606080331s3fd62c94vae5bb9bcdd635970@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-archive-position: 11779
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
X-list: lojban-list
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:3:4:0
X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
From: John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=pCM0NM_NKNB82BjL1kD3e6dpyEeDO-WwuNrFKs_hI4Fygt1RRQ
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26200
Content-Length: 45410
Lines: 1414

<<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.

<<>
> > > 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
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). 

<<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
“Alice is among the surrounders of the building”)
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?

<<>
> > > 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.  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
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). 

<<There is no real explanation>> 

Well, not from you anyhow – repetition is not
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.)>>

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?

<<>
>
> > > 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.”

<<> 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?  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)and 2)(probably in the
process) tell me about its formal properties.  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
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).  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.  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}). 
Have you looked at my stuff on the wiki about the
logic of these expressions?  I forget the
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).

<<>
> > > 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.” 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.   

<<> 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).


<<> > > > > 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.”

<<> > 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 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.
 

<<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”).  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.


<<> 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.


<<>
> "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. 
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).

<<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.  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.

<<>
> <<> 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. 
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).  


<<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 you cite is
the relationship between a mass and its
components, which, obviously, presupposes that
there is a mass to begin with.  What is it – and
where is it in the situation of studnets around a
building.  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.  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.


<<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.

<<> 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.

<<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.  

<<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).

<<>
>
> <<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.

<<>  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.  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.  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.

<<> > 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.  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)).

<<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.  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).

<<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. 
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.


<<> 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
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.  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. 

<<> > 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.  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.

<<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).  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.  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.  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.  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.” 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.

<<> 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.

<<>
> <<> 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, 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).  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? 




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.