Re: [jboske] propositionalism redux

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> I don't have a solution, but any solution must reflect that fact,
> and also the fact that I can say:
> 
> Each of my books will be about the same battle.
> Each of my books will be about a different battle.
> 
> (without knowing which battles). So I conclude that 
> 
> Each of my books will be about a battle.
> 
> is as ambiguous as a nonintensional example like "Each boy will
> kiss a girl".

Why can't the battle-books be handled by quantifier scope, just as
the girl-kissing boys are?

roda poi mibycukta de poi -battle zo'u da -about de
de poi -battle roda poi mibycukta zo'u da -about de

> If we didn't bother about the intensional/extensional
> distinction on selbri, then we can simplify to:
> 
> -fears LEdu'u ro me LA superman -is-to-be-feared
> 
> -- -fears is a kind of 'fearful believing', a believing that
> causes the believer to feel afraid.

It seems to me, though, that this reduction of fearing to believing
violates the psychological facts. When I stand atop a high building
and fear falling, I have no *beliefs* that are relevant -- in fact, my
belief is that I'm perfectly safe, but I experience fear of heights anyway.
Similarly, I have no trouble saying that a mouse fears a cat, but
I have trouble attributing beliefs to the mouse.

-- 
My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing: jcowan@reutershealth.com
I'd use DTDs http://www.reutershealth.com
If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.