From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDT2t_tBBoEo1ftcA@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 27 03:18:11 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QF1os-0008Iw-HK; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:18:11 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf1831471fxm.16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=0mQENWQz3HsI/P7mZ+h9ZQ95F+Fs4RqoaAHopG2U2PQ=; b=K16B9wcuX+ZgOSG0y+f6QnPGJgtvbZy1TjhJaADUDCqujIP+NsFK5rt5EUAYvlfYuZ jMsDwPjRYUiEaBZrSfkAJ4B9NjgAEAb7i0AvqqrUOHGHBTdhcmdZCSRZ7/MBTmF3Fvrd 12v3Evp8DAw04yHiWlEVfM2KGuuEIOXpCfvHI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=mhlkeELGEUT7GWSnGHoYvrR8b0FTw89EXKlq+xNjRXNsPwgRkz1WacyJbtuzhUfYZP 3FcRvuoj2aZEmz4XHgUwp7VVH1JGleCNr0pTCbWATkH803rblOWiATAICitQpfREFK6U uwzTwBzPE0IbjUh78owvbkX+tD3Ar3gif0dug= Received: by 10.223.17.70 with SMTP id r6mr72962faa.16.1303899475881; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.119.12 with SMTP id x12ls163506faq.2.gmail; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.87.194 with SMTP id x2mr170527fal.4.1303899474485; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.87.194 with SMTP id x2mr170526fal.4.1303899474450; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r28si69203fam.10.2011.04.27.03.17.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.53; Received: by bwg12 with SMTP id 12so1778915bwg.40 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.20.66 with SMTP id e2mr1815270bkb.141.1303899473038; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.191.80 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:17:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <29de23a7-9c3b-439e-8bc7-57748489baa7@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:17:52 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lettorals From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555450ee9cc5404a1e3c0b0 --00032555450ee9cc5404a1e3c0b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Ivo Doko wrote: > On 27 April 2011 08:26, Jonathan Jones wrote: > > We don't fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of > technological > > innovation. > > And the ability to achieve technological innovation has happened > because of natural evolution. > Whether or not evolution enabled technological development is irrelevant to whether evolution enabled humans to fly. It didn't, nor under any circumstances will it ever. Einstein's mother gave birth to him. That fact has nothing to do with him developing the Theories of Special and General Relativity. > > Bats have the ability to manipulate tools... > > There have been no reported sightings of bats manipulating tools. > Tool manipulation is a product of comprehension, which is determined by various factors of the brain. The ability does not imply the use. Monkeys are able to type, but they lack that necessary to understand how to write. > > That's not a reason. > > The sentence by itself is circular and not an explanation of the > reason, but the sentence is not by itself (it is followed by an > explanation) so there's no point in singling it out and pointing out > that it is not a reason. Of course it's not. Now that I've singled out > your sentence as well I can say that it is a pointless tautology, > because the word "that" is clearly not a reason. Those sorts of > arguments don't give much fruit, though. > I'm not even going to bother pointing out the flaws in the above argument, as they are wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. > >> No natural language features even > >> remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only mean > >> that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in a way in which such > >> handling of pronouns comes naturally to it. (Which doesn't mean that > >> I'm saying that it can't be learned - it is an extremely flexible > >> piece of hardware we are talking about here.) As opposed to that, > >> inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in understanding the example > >> with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no > >> natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising the > >> requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the language. > > > > > > None of that has anything to do with whether or not Lojban's system is > messy > > or confusing. Red Herring fallacies are not logical arguments. > > I don't see how what I had said was a red herring argument. My point > was that lojban's way of dealing with pronouns does not in any similar > form occur in any natural language, thus it is not a linguistic > mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing (not > messy, I agree - that was a hyperbole). That Lojban's pronouns do not exist in natural languages does not mean that it is confusing, nor does something existing in a natural language mean that it is not confusing. The two statements are unrelated. As such, your point is irrelevant to the issue. I personally do not find the method confusing at all, thus providing counter-evidence to your claim, while I do find German's system of declension extremely confusing. > -- > mu'o mi'e .ivan. > Thus far you have not given any evidence to support your claim that it is confusing. You have provided claims with no backing that at best have merely a glancing relevance to the issue. I invite you to review logical fallacies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies before you construct your next argument. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --00032555450ee9cc5404a1e3c0b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 April 2011 08:26, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't fly because we evolved the ability. We fly because of tec= hnological
> innovation.

And the ability to achieve technological innovation has happened
because of natural evolution.

Whether or not evolu= tion enabled technological development is irrelevant to whether evolution e= nabled humans to fly. It didn't, nor under any circumstances will it ev= er. Einstein's mother gave birth to him. That fact has nothing to do wi= th him developing the Theories of Special and General Relativity.
=A0
> Bats have the ability to manipulate tools...

There have been no reported sightings of bats manipulating tools.

Tool manipulation is a product of comprehension, which is d= etermined by various factors of the brain. The ability does not imply the u= se. Monkeys are able to type, but they lack that necessary to understand ho= w to write.
=A0
> That's not a reason.

The sentence by itself is circular and not an explanation of the
reason, but the sentence is not by itself (it is followed by an
explanation) so there's no point in singling it out and pointing out that it is not a reason. Of course it's not. Now that I've singled = out
your sentence as well I can say that it is a pointless tautology,
because the word "that" is clearly not a reason. Those sorts of arguments don't give much fruit, though.

I'= ;m not even going to bother pointing out the flaws in the above argument, a= s they are wholly irrelevant=A0 to the issue at hand.
=A0
>> No natural language features even
>> remotely similar mechanism for handling pronouns, which can only m= ean
>> that our "hardware" is not a priori "wired" in= a way in which such
>> handling of pronouns comes naturally to it. (Which doesn't mea= n that
>> I'm saying that it can't be learned - it is an extremely f= lexible
>> piece of hardware we are talking about here.) As opposed to that,<= br> >> inductive reasoning (which I demonstrated in understanding the exa= mple
>> with Mabel) *does* come naturally to the hardware, which is why no=
>> natural language features specific mechanisms for minimising the >> requirement of inductive reasoning in understanding of the languag= e.
>
>
> None of that has anything to do with whether or not Lojban's syste= m is messy
> or confusing. Red Herring fallacies are not logical arguments.

I don't see how what I had said was a red herring argument. My po= int
was that lojban's way of dealing with pronouns does not in any similar<= br> form occur in any natural language, thus it is not a linguistic
mechanism which comes naturally to humans, thus it is confusing (not
messy, I agree - that was a hyperbole).

That Lojban= 9;s pronouns do not exist in natural languages does not mean that it is con= fusing, nor does something existing in a natural language mean that it is n= ot confusing. The two statements are unrelated. As such, your point is irre= levant to the issue. I personally do not find the method confusing at all, = thus providing counter-evidence to your claim, while I do find German's= system of declension extremely confusing.
=A0
--
mu'o mi'e .ivan.

Thus far you have not given any evidence to su= pport your claim that it is confusing. You have provided claims with no bac= king that at best have merely a glancing relevance to the issue. I invite y= ou to review logical fallacies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies befo= re you construct your next argument.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo piln= o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Lu= ke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--00032555450ee9cc5404a1e3c0b0--