Re: Link on (Intensional) Masses

["Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>" <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

--- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, "And Rosta" <a.rosta@l...> wrote:

> My answer to that is that I can say {da poi -is-Nick} or {da poi
> -is-gold} (is that which is Nick, is that which is gold), where
> da is a bit of spacetime -- what I take to be an extensional thing.
> {da poi -is-xodium} would yield false.

> What I'm talking about is an extensional thing that is simply a
> realization of a Kind. So yes, the quantification is the same,
> but one claims a world-specific existence and the other doesn't.

I don't get you. Sherlock Holmes also yields false in {da poi -is-Sherlock} in 
this world. So, what, we've got intensions that correspond to existences, and 
intensions that don't? But we already knew that: Kinds exist, whether or not 
they have any avatars. So I don't understand the objection. There are fictional 
Named Individuals and fictional substances, and real Names Individuals and 
real substances. Both are Kinds. Therefore... ?