[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
>
> > Because it was written in a book, and because
> > you need it to be true
> > in order to support your position in this
> > argument of ours? Answer
> > this honestly.
>
> Because, from my point of view it offers the
best
> solution to a number of problems in Lojban.
The
> solutions are equally available within the
> singularist position, but are less likely to be
> used because the long habit of singularists is
> set theory and that does not allow for
> distributive predication on sets.
I think I'm an example of the singularist
position, and really, I
don't want to have much to do with mathematical
sets. I like
"bunches". Which problems are solved by the
pluralist view?>>
Not exactly by the pluralist view (since it is
equally a singularist one) but by the broader
logic that the pluralists have called to our
If a plural (bunch together, as in the students surround the building)
is really a mass, and everything is the same, then what problems has
this "broader understanding of logic" solved? Do you have a practical
example, or are you just saying that you have some sort of deep
attention (though it has been there for nearly 70
years, although largely in Polish or in Quine's
less mainstream polemics. It provides a uniform
way of dealing with plurals, a clear sense of
what a "mass" is (or, at least, one important
facet of that -- so it also provides some clues
to what all is confused in that notion) and thus
a better picture of the underlying Logic that
Lojban is the language of. Some of these
problems have been practical but many of them
were theoretical or aesthetic -- no less problems
for that.
<<>
> > >
> > > > and b) that Lojban uses this pluralist
> > view.
> > >
> > > Lojban belongs to its speakers. As long as
> > some speakers use it, Lojban
> > > can in a sense be said to use it, and some
> > speakers do use it, I can vouch
> > > for that. If most speakers decide they
won't
> > use it, it will perhaps be more
> > > correct to say that Lojban doesn't use it.
> > It's too early to tell at this point,
> > > but if I had to bet, I'd vote on yes.
> >
> > The argument is about the official version of
> > Lojban. This is why I
> > make the distinction between "my version" and
> > "the current/your
> > version". If we go this route, then everyone
is
> > right based on how
> > much support they supposedly have (even a
> > single supporter seems to be
> > enough), and not how reasonable or sensible
> > their interpretations are.
>
> Well, everyone is right and also wrong. Lojban
> doesn't use either view -- and can't as now
> constituted. But either one could be added and
> would automatically add the other as correct.
>
> > >
> > > > Until you do this, you should not attempt
> > to use
> > > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the advice.
> > >
> >
> > I chose to bring the subject of my inner
{ro},
> > and my {le} & {lo} up
> > on the mailing list before I dived in and
> > started using them. I don't
> > think that it's unreasonable to ask you to do
> > the same regarding your
> > plural quantification, especially if I ask
you
> > to avoid using it
> > within this discussion of ours.>>
Sorry you missed the discussion of plural
quantification and reference that went on a while
back before xorxes started using them explicitly
(actually, it is still hard to tell what is being
used, since so little changes in Lojban as a
result. We haven't tackled the hard stuff yet.)
<<>
> But you came in claiming that only your usage
was
> correct and have never supported even that it
was
> correct (it certainly is not how Lojban now
works
> and it seems to be based on an error about
that)
> let alone that only it is correct. At worst,
> xorxes seems to have matched you point for
point.
What usage?>>
That {le ro broda} meant reference to all the
brodas ever and everywhen-where, and so generally
for internal {ro}. At least that seems to have
been the main point, lathough, buried now in a
couple hundred messages, I may have missed
something.
<<The singularist view is much more established
than the pluralist view.>>
Stronger than that. The established view is
singularist and has a logic different from the
one proposed. It is also a logic that makes
Lojban's treatment of plurals awkward and often
inadequate. Indeed, tthe "logical language" has
to violate the accepted logic in a number of
fairly basic cases.
<<In fact, I allow and agree with plural
predication: {ci lo ci cribe}
is a plural predicate.>>
Well, it is not a predicate at all, so I don't
get the point here. Is it that we allow plural
terms to be predicated of? Yes. we do and that
is a violation of standard logic, but not of
"pluralist" logic. So, if you admit this case,
you are on the way to seeing the need for the
change.
<<It's just that I disagree with certain usages
of plural predicates.>>
Again, predicates aren't singular or plural. Do
you mean that you don't like the fact that the
satisfiers of a predicate need not be things
taken one by one but may be several things taken
simultaneously?
Yes. It makes no sense to say "simultaneously, the students surround
the building". What is "each one", in relation to surrounding the
building?
Each one is a surrounder of the building? No.
Each one is part of the mass that surrounds the building? Yes, but
this isn't what the pluralist means.
Each one is related to the event of surrounding the building? Yes, but
this says nothing of how they're related. This doesn't answer the
question.
Each one is a referent of "the students"? Yes, but same goes for "the
students wore hats" - they're a referent there too. This doesn't
answer the question
Each one partakes in the relationship? Yes, this is the "are part of
the mass that is the action" interpretation - a "mass" interpretation,
which isn't what the pluralist means.
<<The last two points that xorxes has given I've
refuted as inadequate.
>
> > > > 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.)
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > The last one should be: "Yes, the students
do
> > it together."
> > >
> >
> > Your definition of "together" seems very
> > strange. No definition described at
> >
> > http://www.answers.com/together?ff=1
> >
> > seems to cover it, rather, they indicate that
> > "together" is used to
> > describe masses of things, or reciprocal
> > relationships.
But reading those definitions as a pluralist,
they say exactly what the pluralist means when
he says "the students together." No masses are
mentioned, nor sets nor corporations nor ,,,,,
just the tings themselves.
No masses are mentioned?
"In or into a single group, mass, or place: We gather together."
The definitions that I see are either "as a group", "simultaneously in
time", or "reciprocally". The latter two have nothing to do with our
conversation.
<<> Then I fear that answers.com has missed
> something. This seems a perfectly natural
> locution.
Yes, well, it seems that most English
dictionaries have missed
something. Either that, or you've introduced
something that isn't
there. My point was that xorxes should perhaps
try to explain what he
means by "together", because he clearly isn't
using it in any sense
that I (and the ever-authoritative dictionaries)
understand the word
to mean.>>
As noted, to a pluralist he is using it in
exactly the sense there presented. Once you
become a true believer in a metaphysical
position, everything conforms to -- and confirms
-- your view.
I'm sure that when I become a true believer, I'll believe in what you
say without questioning it, because I've already questioned it -
that's why I believe it, after all. But until some evidence is
presented that there's some way to see "the students" that isn't
"individually" or "a mass of", I won't just take your word for it.
<<>
> > > > 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..
> > >
> > > Because you assert it?
> > >
> >
> > Because you offer no evidence to the
contrary.
> > I ask you what "the
> > students" refers to, if not the students
each,
> > nor the mass of them.
> > You offer no explanation. Here, I'll offer
some
> > rough explanations:
> >
> > "The 50 students (individually)" refers to
each
> > entity, that is, we
> > have a set of 50 entities that are students
in
> > mind.
> Well, insisting that it is a set from the
get-go
> prejudices the issue. If I were to have a
> problem with where you are going, I would start
> right here: we have no set in mind, just 50
> students.
Set as in bunch.>>
And bunch as in some one thing that does duty for
the many, not bunch as a colloquial way to talk
about several things at once.
You mean bunch as in "few" or "some" or "couple"? "A few students
surrounded the building"? Ok, sure. I assert that when you say "a few
students", you mean "a mass/group of a few students", or "the few
students individually/each". I've challenged you to describe what else
it could mean, if not those two things.
Its the "some one
thing" that is the problem, regardless of what
you call it.
<<>
> > If we say that
> > "the students run", we mean that it is true
> > that each student of this
> > set of 50 runs. If any of the students do not
> > run, the statement is
> > false.
>
> Well, this is a fine point, but not worth
arguing
> here. I'll assume you mean it in its most
> particular sense.
>
>
> > "Together the students" refers to the
students
> > as a collective entity.>>
Not so, says the pluralist, it just refers to the
students and refers to them collectively. I know
that sounds just mumbo-jumbo to you, but it makes
No, it's not mumbo-jumbo to me. I know what you're getting at, and I'm
perfectly capable of thinking in the same manner as you. It's just
that I think it's the wrong way to think, because I can't find an
underlying relationship that isn't "mass". I recognize that you don't
have to "load" the entire concept of mass into your head when you say
it, but I don't think that this constitutes a brand new relationship.
Just the same old "mass" relationship, with some ignorance-is-bliss
thrown in (I don't mean that in a negative sense).
perfectly good sense to a pluralist. The Real
Presence makes good sense to RCs and is
mumbo-jumbo to Prezbies, and neither can prove
the other wrong.
The logic that I like to use says that it's up to the person making a
claim to prove that claim. So if I say that there's a unicorn right
here, it's up to me to prove it. And if you say that there's a
relationship that isn't "bunch-individually" or "mass" involved, that
there's a third relationship, then you have to prove it. Or at least
show it, in some form that doesn't rely on gut instincts of what "the
20 students" must mean.
<<> It does not obviously look that way; what is
you
> evidence for this claim? "The group of
students"
> is a more clear cut case of a collective entity
> -- and even it is open to question.
My evidence is the way in which every dictionary
I've seen interprets
"together". My proof is the insensibility and
inability to explain or
elaborate on any other perspective.>>
Well, as noted, the dictionary "clearly" gives
the pluralist meaning, which is the only
sensible position as we have explained and
elaborated ad nauseam. 'Tis -'Tain't. Draw.
Which definition of the dictionary gives the pluralist meaning?
<<>
> > Sometimes, this collective entity can be seen
> > as a "crowd" or a "mob".
> > When people look at groups of people, they
> > never have trouble
> > recognizing that this amalgamation is an
entity
> > on its own - that is,
> > they see a forest, and not 10000 trees, they
> > see a book, and not 500
> > pages. "The forest is burning", and not "3542
> > trees are burning".
>
> Sure, if you talk about forests then you talk
> about forests, but there is no problem in
taking
> the small picture and commenting that so far
3542
> trees have burnt.
Sure. Now how does the pluralist view, the
"bunch-together" view, fit into
this?>>
Just that in order for a forest to burn, some
percentage (typically "enough") of the teee have
to burn and if they do, the forst burns. There
is nothing else there than the tree, no forest
over and above and separate from the tree. LIke
"over and above" is not the right thing to use. A dog is a mammal is
an animal is a physical thing. That's "over and above". A bunch of
organs in a mass forming an organism isn't "over and above". It's just
a thing that the organs form collectively.
"the average man, "forest" is just a shorthand
way for talking about a lot of trees (and
problably other things as well -- undergrowth,
some critters ...)
No, it's not. It's a thing that's distinct from just "10000 trees" or
what have you. You've heard of the expression "missing the forest for
the trees", I assume?
<<>
> > So
> > when we say "together the students surround
the
> > building", we mean
> > this thing that is a mass of students
surrounds
> > the building.
> >
> > Can you offer something similar? It can be as
> > crude as you'd like to
> > start, I just want /something/.
>
> Unfortunately, the response is to cite the same
> expression and note that it does not have to
mean
> another object over and above the students.
>
I think you've confused two things. There is
nothing "over and above"
the students, and I never said that there had to
be. There is,
however, something that is composed of the
students.>>
Now you are really confusing me. There is
something composed of the students but not over
and above the students.
The thing over and above students is perhaps "persons", and then
"physical-things". "Animal" is over and above "fox", and it's not
because 20 foxes together make up an animal.
So, 10 dogs or 10 cats are both "under and below" animal, and can both
be referred to as 10 animals. However, "10 students" and "a mass of 10
students" can't, by my perspective (which is the one you were relying
on to make your point), be referred to as "10 students".
Yes, they're both "over and above" in some way or another, but since
we were talking about one sense of it, it wouldn't do to think of it
using the other sense.
It clearly is not a
student and it is by your say-so not the
students. So how is it not a new entity. This
talk is, fo course, typical of mereological sums
(L-sets, ...) and if that is really what you mean
then you are already in the position (as I have
assumed you are anyhow) of accepting the logic
involved here, since it is jot and tittle the
same as the pluralist logic. People just talk in
odd ways about it (and I think both ways are
odd). Of course, what you say is literally
contradictory, so I am giving it the best light I
can. If you mean something else, then we are in trouble.