Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QnUnv-0003QA-AI; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:07:38 -0700 Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31sf5654556qyk.16 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:07:28 -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=er8e6gWHn1LDjC9swDcP7Rj1pO7EfZ0bT4K6KfKRhmk=; b=6PmJC3xk74VbLcOZxLGO5Cpm8Cwolrfz1/DYwZJdDLk2DFLZWvJEOcjdAtHdec6sd1 oXIbljoRpcnl5B7ItjuHpG7Le2YMZtVY6z9Qd6CsHmop8JIZ5oJRBCTYFy6vSjnkRZ6C kjUkcFNo2aH/vMY0DSTniC50ZIJyZvH0a0z14= Received: by 10.224.183.13 with SMTP id ce13mr446437qab.9.1312114046318; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.176.211 with SMTP id bf19ls10433378qab.3.gmail; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.183.17 with SMTP id ce17mr2658945qab.24.1312114045399; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 05:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.204.8 with SMTP id fk8msqab; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.95.131 with SMTP id dk3mr272924vdb.44.1312111448132; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.95.131 with SMTP id dk3mr272923vdb.44.1312111448123; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v13si5065368vdf.3.2011.07.31.04.24.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:08 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.172; Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so582490qyk.3 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.17.17 with SMTP id q17mr2397928qca.154.1312111447739; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.28.130 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:24:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Coining a lujvo: "evidence" From: tijlan To: lojban-beginners@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 209.85.216.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 5981 On 30 July 2011 19:01, .arpis. wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:37 AM, tijlan wrote: >> >> On 28 July 2011 03:18, .arpis. wrote: >> > I, personally, am a fan {au sai} of {facydatci} >> > >> > Data that's false isn't data, per se. >> >> You can have false data as working data. That's how fraud, delusion, >> etc. are possible. > > I'm tempted to continue differentiating "working data" (i.e. something that > someone thinks to be data and thus true) and "data" (which must be either > {lo jetnu} or {lo fatci}, I'm not sure which), but I am beginning to see how > this can become problematic. "Working data" is any data that can be actually used, and the application doesn't require the data to be true / correct. A librarian could enter a completely wrong set of name, publisher, etc. of a book into the database by mistake, and that false data could be used by visitors to the library to search for another book with properly that profile. If I as a visitor then noticed the data are incorrect, I would still consider it data, items of information, except that it's incorrect: lo datni cu jitfa The data are false. More precisely: lo ca'a datni ca'a jitfa The actual (currently used, 'working') data are actually false. That x1 is jitfa doesn't force it to be na datni (which would obviously contradict the above sentence). What actually are datni can well be na jetnu. >> Consider also this case: >> A 'color-blind' person goi koha and a non-'color-blind' person goi >> kohe are looking at an apple and an orange. Kohe says the two fruits >> have different colors. Koha says they have the same color. Both koha >> and kohe are truthfully reporting the sense data they each perceive of >> the fruits. Koha's and kohe's datni represent relative facts. But >> fatci1 is defined to be 'in the absolute'. Whose sense data should be >> exclusively referred to as {facydatni}? In other words, whose datni >> would you consider as being *not* of reality? > > If "color" is an abstract notion based on perception (your blue vs. my > blue), then {ge nai lo datni pe ko'a gi nai lo datni pe ko'e fatci} (could I > have said {lo datni pe ge nai ko'a gi nai ko'e fatci}?) since neither is > true in the absolute sense. Suppose: lo datni po ko'a --> lo datni be ko'i bei lo nu ko'a ko'i viska ( the data about kohi obtained by koha visually perceiving kohi ) --> lo du'u ko'i blanu xi pa ma'i ko'a ( that kohi is blue-1 according to koha ) --> fo'a and lo datni po ko'e --> lo datni be ko'i bei lo nu ko'e ko'i viska ( the data about kohi obtained by kohe visually perceiving kohi ) --> lo du'u ko'i blanu xi re ma'i ko'e ( that kohi is blue-2 according to kohe ) --> fo'e Foha and fohe represent different color-perceptions of the same kohi by koha and kohe. I would say foha and fohe are each a fact-with-a-frame-of-reference, lo fatci be ma'i zo'e. > If "color" is defined in terms of the wavelengths/frequencies of the photons > bouncing off of the fruits, then kohe's statement is certainly not fatci and > koha's statment is probably fatci, but koha can't know that just based on > koha's observation. Colors are primarily properties not of photons' wavelengths but of the interactions between a visual mechanism & whatever effective stimulus. A particular wavelength can varyingly correlate with different qualities (or 'qualia') depending on the receptive mechanism. The colors we perceive of fruits with our human eyes are intrinsic not to the fruits or the photons bouncing off of the fruits, but to the ways our organs handle inputs from those environments. To the extent that reality includes all physical processes whether or not the outputs are color-laden, the 'color-blind' kohe is reporting an aspect of reality that is no less actual or truthful than what the non-'color-blind' koha is reporting. And, to the extent that color-perceptions are contingent upon the physiological configuration, koha who sees colors is no less conditioned than those with synesthesia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia That is, colors can exist independent of photons' wavelengths. Subjective / individual views can have their own sort of truth-claim. Evidence can be subjective. A statement based on subjective evidence can be a legitimate representation of a truth, insofar as the utterer is being both internally and externally truthful. In addition to the synesthesia example, consider this: koho: This painting is beautiful! kohu: Show me the evidence that it's beautiful. If koho is being truthful about koho's own perception, koho is reporting a truth. It's a fact that the painting appears beautiful to koho. The evidence for the painting's aesthetic value is the content of koho's direct experience. Importantly, the truth-claim of a subjective / individual / metaphysical view is not superior to the truth-claim of an objective / collective / physical view, or vice versa. Both are compatible and equal in their representational roles. Subjectivity and objectivity are different but integral registers of reality. All actual perspectives bear legitimate truths about reality that is fundamentally neither mental nor material. This philosophical stance that I hold is related to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism , which I think offer valuable considerations to the criteria for 'evidence'. For more about subjective, first-person evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.