[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 6/6/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 6/5/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> > > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when
> you
> > > say "the students" does not
> > > > > mean that "the students" does not refer
> to
> > > a group of students. It
> > > > > does.
> > > >
> > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But it
> is
> > > not the only possible view.
> > >
> > > Ok, then please show an alternate view.
> You've
> > > flatly asserted that
> > > one exists, yet when I ask you to explain
> it, a
> > > vague two-word answer
> > > ("the students") with no explanation or
> > > demonstrative examples is all
> > > I get.
> >
> > On a pluralist view, reference is a relation,
> not
> > a function, so that a single term may refer
> > simultaneously to several things.
>
> Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer to
> think of it as a
> relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to me.
I don't see what this is illustrating or,
perhaps, just what is says about the way
reference is treated: function or relation.
That the pluralist view is not the only one to think of things as a relation.
> The question that I pose
> is: what is the nature of the relation between,
> say, Alice (one of the
> students that surrounds the building) and the
> surrounding of the
> building? The relation is crystal clear between
> Alice and the wearing
> of a hat, but the building-surroundment
> relation seems to be
> vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down. I
> suspect that this is
> because the true nature of this pluralist
> relationship is that of a
> mass - the relationship is that Alice is part
> of a mass/group that
> surrounds the building, and that there simply
> is no other sensible
> interpretation.
Well, I suppose that Alice's relation surrounding
the building (when she is one of the students
surrounding the building)is "participation." I
Participation in an event? xorxes already offered this. Consider "the
students surround the students". What is Alice participating in?
suppose that giving it a name is not going to
satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out the
formal specifications of the relation, you will
just say "Oh, that's just membership in the
group."
Yes, that's exactly what I'll say, because that's exactly what it is.
It's a mistake to think that masses can only be physical lumps of
something. For example, 1000 people can be foolish each (by gathering
fools together, and inciting them each to do foolish things), or
together they can "participate" in a large-scale foolishness, without
being foolish each. What this is saying is that they're component
parts of an action, the action of being foolish. Same thing, different
perspective, still a mass.
Or if I try to specify it in extension,
spelling out how she particpates (standing NEbyN
of the building at the same time as others are
standing at the other points of the compass, say)
you will relate that to being a member of the
group as well.
Well, yes. This is the method of participation. For example, I can say
"together the three men lifted the piano, by method of one man
directing, and two men bearing".
To which I can only say
"Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist
languages are two different ways of stating the
same facts.
Not quite. The pluralist view asserts that you don't introduce masses.
Instead, there's a special "bunch-together" (or something - it hasn't
exactly been elaborated upon) that supposedly handles the questions
raised by the removal of "mass".
They are completely
intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical way.
You want a pluralist claim that is not
interpretable as a singularist one and there just
ain't any. This whole discussion is totally
vacuous.
If pluralist "loi ci tadni" translated into "da poi gunma lo ci
tadni", then everything would be just fine. But that's supposedly not
what it translates to.
> > A sentence
> > using this term will be true if those things
> are
> > in the extension of the predicate in the
> > appropriate way, either individually or
> together.
> > From this basis, a complete semantics can be
> > (has been) developed, which produces the
> > classical system with the "among" relation
> added.
>
> Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications of
> being "among a group such that".
And so it does -- when used by a singularist.
When used by a pluralist, it doesn't. But the
properties of "among" are the same for both.
But in the pluralist view, there's still a group there, you just don't
choose to acknowledge it, right?
> > In a totally parallel way, we can develop a
> > semantics with things and masses and the
> usual
> > definitions of truth and get the same
> classical
> > system with "among" added. What is said is
> the
> > same, the conditions for truth are totally
> > intertranslatable, and so on.
> >
> > > I doubt that you'll be left anything to
> explain
> > > your position with
> > > once you start explaining. The pluralist
> view
> > > relies on not looking
> > > too deeply at what "the students" means,
> > > because once you do you see
> > > that it's either a mass, or the students
> > > individually.
This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my point
of view, so the other must be defective in some
way. Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist
view is defective, the singularist is defective
in an exactly matching fashion (in this case
creating aentity that has no place in reality).
What you just responded to wasn't so much an argument as a challenge.
Fact is, explanations of how "bunch-together" differs from "mass"
aren't really available. I attribute this to there being no
explanation of "bunch-together" that is different from "mass".
> > > >
> > > > > Show me how and what "the students"
> refers
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > In the pluralist view, it does not refer
> to
> > > one thing. It refers to
> > > > many things,
> > > > i.e. the many students.
> > >
> > > Ok, then when I say "group of students", I
> too
> > > am "referring to many things".
> > >
> > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when you
> say
> > > "the students" does not
> > > mean that "the students" does not refer to
> a
> > > group of students. It
> > > does.
> >
> > By you, yes. By xorxes, no -- it is all
> about
> > the pictures in your head.
> >
> > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group
> of
> > > students.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Additionally, I don't think that Lojban
> > > uses this mistaken concept of
> > > > > "plural predication": it seems that the
> > > book that describes it has not
> > > > > been published yet, and so Lojban
> predates
> > > it by about 20 years.
> > > >
> > > > That may be true. Is your argument then
> that
> > > conservatism requires
> > > > that we stick with the singularist view?
> (CLL
> > > does concede that pronouns
> > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or
> > > "masses" depending on context,
> > > > so even there one can find, at least in
> > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.)
> > >
> > > My argument here was that the burden of
> proof
> > > is on you to show that
> > > a) this pluralist view exists and is
> correct,
> >
> > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a
> number
> > of others going back to the late thirties).
> Is
> > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is
> the
> > usual singularist view, since they are the
> same
> > thing.
> >
> > > and b) that Lojban uses
> > > this pluralist view. Until you do this, you
> > > should not attempt to use
> > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> >
> > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban
> uses
> > because we can't get inside Lojban's head.
> > Further, Lojban does not have devices for
> > expressing some crucial distinction in the
> > theory.
>
> Which distinctions?
Primarily the difference between distributive and
collective predication. Even {loi} does not
appear to be just collective predication -- it
seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo
cases as well. And there are cases which cannot
be dealt with using gadri.
Examples? I see no practical differences between corporate masses and
regular masses, and I'm not familiar with Urgoo cases at all. Dividing
things into special classes of masses isn't very useful. Yes, the
components of water are usually more water, and yes, perhaps two
car-makers together have the potential to be seen as a single car
maker, while two bottles together would not be a single bottle.
However, while this serves to explain what things can be seen as
masses and which can't, it doesn't say anything about masses as they
are. A mass is just a mass - who cares if you can split it up into
more of the same or not?
> > So the best thing to say is that Lojban
> > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but
> > sometimes does things that look like one,
> > sometime like the other. The proposal,
> stripped
> > of its picture thinking, is just to make
> Lojban
> > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of a
> > number of false starts and missteps that a
> > previous state of ignorance forced on us.
>
> My position is that if there was a state of
> ignorance before, it's
> being solved now by inducing a confusion, and
> then not thinking too
> deeply so that one does not see the problems.
Well, that is polemics, not testable claims. Or,
Sure. My arguments lie elsewhere.
if testable, then false, since the theory is
there before you (the one that is not easily
documentable is the singularist one, actually).
It's difficult to document?
>
> > > >
> > > > > Then what surrounds the building?
> Please
> > > give an explanation,
> > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to
> a
>
=== message truncated ===
<<>
> > >
> > > > Then what surrounds the building? Please
> > give an explanation,
> > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to a
> > vague 2-word answer.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid nothing further I might add will
> > change your mind. Luckily
> >
> > Why are you using the word "further" here?
The
> > only thing you've done
> > to change my mind is answer "the students"
when
> > I ask "what does 'the
> > students' refer to?".
>
> But that is a completely adequate answer. If
you
> don't see that, then it is unlikely that
anything
> else will work either. I would be inclined to
> have said that none of this matters, but that
is
> not going to be a point that works 200 some
> entries into the discussion.
No, it's not an adequate answer. When you ask me
about my position,
"what does 'together the students' refer to?", or
"what does 'the
students (individually) refer to?", I can, and
have, given answers
that were much more elaborate than "together the
students" (aka
"mass") and "the students (individually)" (aka
"bunch-individually"),
respectively (though the answers were still a bit
crude). I could
potentially write pages of explanations of the
differences between the
two. Not so with "bunch-together". The best that
can be done with that
one is to call it by different names.>>
But, of course, "bunch" (outside its technical
use) or "mass" or even "student individually"
also adds nothing to the discussion: it is a word
with (to a pluralist certainly) has not
significant content.
"Mass"/"together" expands to "x1 is a mass with components x2". This
is an actual relation. I consider that as significant in terms of
content as you can get.
They, on the other hand,
would find oit odd that you cannot understand
such a straightforward English expression as "the
students" (especially since you seem to
understand te mysterious "the mass of students").
It's about as mysterious as "the building for students" - that is, not
mysterious at all. "the students", on the other hand, is ambiguous: it
can refer as in "the students wore hats" or "the students (as a mass)
surrounded the building", and then, of course, there's also "the
students (as a bunch-together) surrounded the building", which nobody
has really explained or demonstrated as being different from "as a
mass", though copious flat assertions of the sort have been made.
Note that, if you do write pages explaining the
differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a few
unifrom changes and provide you with the
explanation you want for the difference between
"the students individually" and "the students
together."
Please, do it then! Do it with the crude paragraphs I've offered. What
are you arguing this with me for, when simply demonstrating this would
solve everything?
<<>
>
> > > for you, and for anyone else who prefers
the
> > singularist view, nothing
> > > in Lojban prevents you from putting that
view
> > into practice. If you are
> > > consistent with your view you simply won't
> > apply a distributive and a
> > > non-distributive predicate to the same
sumti,
> > you will always have
> > > to split your bridis in two in such cases.
> > This may make some things
> > > more cumbersome to express, and I see
nothing
> > gained by it, but it's
> > > always doable.
> >
> > Please show (a) and (b) before attempting to
> > use your pluralist view
> > in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the
> > singularist view.>>
Why? It is not privileged until shown to be so
(which it cannot be, of course). Lojban is not
consistently either -- assuming we could tell
them apart.
<<> As noted, Lojban's adherence to the
singularist
> view in detail is as open to exception as a
> pluralist view -- Lojban can't express either
one
> in any thorough way.
>
> > > > This brings us right back to:
> > > >
> > > > 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra gi'e
> > blabi} to refer to a white
> > > > dog and running cats,
> > >
> > > Right, because the animals that are running
> > are not the same animals
> > > that are white. In the case of the
students,
> > the people that are wearing the
> > > hats are the same people that are
surrounding
> > the building. If they were
> > > not the same people you could not use one
> > sumti for both predications.
> >
> > You're switching the meaning of "the
students"
> > in mid-sentence. The
> > thing that surrounds the building is one
thing.
>
> I wonder if this is really defensible. If you
> ask someone how many things are surrounding the
> building, I expect that the answer "Fifty
> students" will be more frequent than "One group
> of students." "A bunch of students" is also
very
> likely, but flat ambiguous, if you think
> singularist and pluralist are really different.
If I ask someone what surrounds the building,
they'll answer "a bunch
of students" or "a group of students". "Bunch"
will be used in the
sense of "group", and not in the sense that we've
defined it for the
purposes of this conversation.>>
You will no doubt take it that way; how are you
sure the speaker meant it that way or even that
he can sense the difference?
Uh, because "bunch" doesn't have the definition that we've assigned it
(for the sole purposes of this argument) in common use. Bunch is
simply "group", with implications of the things being close together -
"bunch of twigs", etc.
If they said "the students surrounded the rope", then you might have
an argument as to how it's meant. But if we say "the group of students
surrounded the rope", then it's clear that we mean the *group* (of
students), and not anything else.
<< I will less frequently get the answer
"fifty students", because it's seldom that people
miss the forest for
the trees, or in this case the crowd for each
student, and when I do
receive that answer, it'll be in the sense of
"fifty students
together".>>
Precisely (though I am not so sure about your
statistics). They mean the 50 students together,
not something other than the students.
You seem to think that "introducing" the entity of this student group
is as odd as introducing the entity of a baboon. It's not. It's
already in context.
"The 50 students surrounded the building" and "the group of 50
students surrounded the building" are synonymous in meaning. It's just
that one of them uses the word "group", which invokes a certain frame
in your mind that the omission of the word wouldn't.
Forst are
just trees after all (with some exceptions like
willow forests which are apparently just one
tree). (I don't of course, really mean this. I
am just pointing out how useless taking what
someone says is in figuring out which of the
identical sides they are on.
A forest is not the same thing as a set/"bunch" of trees, just as a
human is not just a set/"bunch" of organs... just as a crowd
surrounding a building is not just a set/"bunch" of students.
<<>
> > The thing(s) that wear
> > hats are each something different. One thing
> > being composed of others
> > does not mean that it is the same as each
> > component part.
>
> And no one said it was.
>
> > I am composed of my organs. When I run, my
> > organs do not run. My
> > organs together (i.e. my body) runs.
>
> Even that is open to some question; bodies tend
> to be -- for purposes like running -- more than
> the sum of their parts (well, at least
different
> from).
Right. They aren't a mathematical set, they're a
mass.>>
More than that too, an organism. That is, the
organs in an organization. Without the
organization, the organs are just a pile of
specimens.
That's what I mean when I say mass. I discussed this earlier using the
example of a piece of graphite and a piece of wood not quite being a
pencil. Search for the term "graphite" if you're interested.
I think you are making the case for a
body being a corporate entity, not either a msss
or a set. We haven't got that developed yet, but
it does not seem to say anything useful here --
unless you want to say that the students
surrounding the building are also a corporation.
Can you explain what you mean by "corporation"? To me, it seems like a
needless taxonomy - how is a corporate mass different from other
masses?
I don't think that need be the case and, if it
were, we would need a disvcussion different from
the one so far.
<<>
> > >
> > > > and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni] cu
> > [dasni
> > > > lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to refer
> > to a number of students and
> > > > to a mass composed of students.
> > >
> > > Right, because the mass is not the
students,
> > so if you only allow singular
> > > reference, you can refer either to the one
> > mass of students or to each
> > > one student individually.
>
> But, of course, you can predicate of that mass
> distributively (or could if the language
> allowed).
What do you mean? Once you've made a mass, it's
difficult to split it up.>>
Set theory, which seems to be the model for talk
of masses,
A mass is a relationship, it need not have anything to do with set
theory. x1 is a mass of composite parts x2.
does indeed not allow direct
predication of members through predication of the
set. It does it indirectly, by inclusion and
perhaps some other relations. This is, of
course, just an accident of the way the language
of set theory was set up. As Lesniewski and now
pluralist logic show, the set up could be
different, making these distributive predications
easier (and more obvious). That is, splitting a
mass (in this sense) is merely a function of
language and can be changed witha change of
language.
<<>
> > > But if you allow plural reference, then it
is
> > the very same students who
> > > wear the hats and surround the building. In
> > this case, the two predicates
> > > are predicated of the _same_ referents, and
> > so you can use one sumti to
> > > refer to them.
> >
> > What surrounds the building?
> > (The students.)
> > Does each student surround the building?
> > (No.)
> > Then what is it that surrounds the building?
> > (The students.)
> > So you mean the students together?
> > (No, the students.)
>
> Yes, the students together, not that is
anything
> other than the students; it is just a way that
> are predicated of
> >
> > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I
> > understand your position
> > perfectly. You think that saying "the
students"
> > frees you from
> > implying that they're a group. I recognize
> > this, and I assert that
> > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word
> > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the
> > students" does not mean that "the students"
> > does not refer to a group
> > of students..
>
> Well, actually it does. At least it allows it.
>
It does does not refer? What do you mean?>>
I mean that using "the students" rather than "the
group of students" does mean that the "the
students" does not refer to a group.
Ok, then if it's not connected to the act of "surrounding the
building" by way of a group, then how is it connected? What is the
relation?
Of course,
you can mean that equally well using "the group
of students," but it is harder to see. And, by
parity of reasoning (since the two are formally
identical) "the students" does refer to a group,
if you want to go that way, although it is clarer
if you say "the group of students."
What are formally identical? Thinking of them as a group and not
thinking of them as a group?