RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Craig wrote:

> If you feel this way, then you at least imply that a footprint has a truth
> value!



If I already agreed that a puff of smoke can have a truth value, do you
think I'll hesitate to claim the same about a footprint? What gives it its
truth value is nothing more than the awareness that it will be interpreted
by someone as meaning anything.



> >I haven't agreed that UI has a truth value, but if you are happy with
> >what I said then presumably all we disagree about is what counts as
> >a truth value. Certainly "real" and "fake" are not to my mind the
> >same as "true" and "false".
>
> However, since 'true' and 'real' are interchangeable in some dialects of
> English, as are 'fake' and 'false', speakers of these dialects whorfishly
> tend not to distinguish. But now that you mention it, there is a real
> difference - the footprint isn't real (it isn't actually a footprint), but
> it isn't false (it expresses nothing, true or false).



It expresses something if it was intended to mean something, and it was
perceived to mean something.




-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.