From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDRssPyBBoEJvgyfA@googlegroups.com Sun Aug 21 03:09:43 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qv4yB-0001Zq-Ge; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:42 -0700 Received: by vxh2 with SMTP id 2sf5097556vxh.16 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=xskcj/iCs+JfppD945MG5WKFOInHPMSvZ1VLr/hnlWY=; b=JeIqb95/7ksveY21Z0LMjugNajMP7yBQZSGYHlMfQYVxRSC5m9CD/P1f2PS6iWP6yF RnFUYBNz38TrrEvvWigKsDS6Q+2lmoqzdCyYSIdwJdVPOgE1rTKnE3/UXkh/BD9aJmVS oI4+HroT6gQnRQSQ1nQynV1N88+rD3tWwKql0= Received: by 10.220.107.131 with SMTP id b3mr186140vcp.20.1313921361924; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.24.163 with SMTP id v3ls7491791vdf.3.gmail; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.95.50 with SMTP id dh18mr852844vdb.25.1313921360174; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.95.50 with SMTP id dh18mr852843vdb.25.1313921360165; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l6si1416025vdt.0.2011.08.21.03.09.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.44; Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so4702632qwc.17 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.5.194 with SMTP id 2mr604255qcw.215.1313921358848; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.73.203 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:09:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <1313242205.82409.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110813150339.GR10697@gonzales> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:09:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 19 August 2011 12:44, Jonathan Jones wrote: > No. A rhino is not a brain. This isn't philosophy. And even philosophy > disagrees with you anyway. Rhinos and brains have distinct Forms, idealized > or actualized. Form recognition is conditional and arbitrary. I already explained that. I'm going to try to clarify that in another way. And let's have "elephant", because there is a gismu for that. Suppose the elephant brain, lo xanto besna, is so unique that biologists can differentiate it from all the other types of brains. There would be at least this sense where one can taxonomically identify a certain type of brain by the term "xanto". You would then, according to your view, argue that "lo xanto" should refer to something more than a brain. That something would be a group of body parts. Which group? There are countless combinations of body parts. Is something without the left ear lo xanto? Would something cease to be lo xanto if hunters removed its tusks? Or would any combination of body parts do, as long as 'it' is alive? If so, then the group combination wouldn't be essential. What would definitively make something lo xanto would be not some mereological conditions like "being more than a brain" but the event of being alive in whatever form that can be identified by the term "xanto", which would include the type of the brain. And, if our technology were so advanced that we could keep the brain alive independently of other organs, we could call that brain lo xanto. I can imagine conversations like: A: lo vi besna cu mo B: xanto C: lo vu xanto cu mo D: besna You might suggest that lo xanto need not be alive, that we can call a dead body lo xanto. And I would agree. But again, what body? Which combination of body parts? What does most commonly and objectively remain about lo xanto over the different states of being alive and dead? What is the most basic picture of lo xanto, if any, that persists throughout the process of birth and decay? You mentioned actualization; actualization through what? I would say DNA, in this case. The hereditary blueprint, the Form of "xanto", if any, is the genome, the information encoded in DNA. Wherever is an elephant DNA, we can recognize the identity of lo xanto. What you would call an actualized xanto is a developed image, a projection, from the more fundamental xanto, the genome. If parts of the projection such as an ear or tusks are compromised for whatever physical reasons (e.g. diseases, ionizing radiation, bullets, blades), the overall identification of lo xanto would still be possible based on an analysis of the DNA, the projector of the genome, from whichever remaining part. In other words, lo xanto resides in every part of lo xanto. The whole qualitatively permeates, if not quantitatively identical to, the parts. Conversely, it could happen that you consider something to be lo xanto based on its macroscopic (human-friendly) appearance but its genome is scientifically classified as lo na'e xanto. What exactly is the basis of the Form of "xanto" that you would say is distinct and unique? In my opinion (which you might not give a flying ivory), the genome is the most objective and stable definition, and the DNA the most 'concrete' instance, of lo xanto we can get. This isn't to say that we can't use "lo xanto" to refer to what we usually call an "elephant" -- the atomic projection that comes out of the DNA. Nor is this to say that the xanto genome is invariable. In every stage of reproduction, it gets modified. There is not such a thing as one absolute blueprint of "xanto". All 'actualized' xanto not only are different bodies but also derive from literally different metaphysical schemes, forms. We could have a set of certain selected forms and consider it the generic form of "xanto". And that would surely be arbitrary on the selector's part and conditional upon the available biological instances of xanto as well as upon the aforementioned standard of technology that could change the form in which life exists. You say I'm being way too technical and nit-picky. I'm trying to do the opposite about the actual usage of the selbris in question. In an actual Lojbanic conversation, I wouldn't unconditionally fault people for referring to a non-brain or a brain by "lo xanto". The details of my comments are directed towards your argument that a term for a perceived whole cannot represent a perceived part. I'm not trying to impose more restrictions on how we use Lojban; I'm trying to clarify what I see as the problems of your restrictive assumption about the physical world, which requires a degree of technicality. mu'o -- 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.