[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}
On 6/7/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 6/6/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 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?
Well, is Alice among the surrounding or the
surrounded? Those seem to be the two events in
which she could participate. In the one case she
is (more or less) on the outside looking in, in
the other on the inside looking out.
Sure, I guess. I don't think that this helps much in terms of
explaining it, though. She participates in the wearing of hats too,
after all.
> > 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.
This is beginning to look like your sense of
"mass" or "group" or whatever is less about the
things involved and more about what they are
involved in. That is dangerously close to making
the distinction between distributive and
collective predication but in (as in Lojban)
misleading terms.
It's equally about things involved and what they're involved in. But
in the end, it's the thing that the students compose that does the
surrounding, and not the students themselves. I don't care which one
of
lo gunma be [le tadni] cu sruri lo dinju
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [le tadni]
lu'o le tadni cu sruri lo dinju
expands to, and I see the difference between the two.
Perhaps you could make this disinction between "distributivity" and
"non-distributivity" in a way that (usefully!) explains what relation
Alice has to the surroundment of the building? The way I see it,
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [la alis]
"alice is part of that which surrounds the building" or
"alice is part of the surroundment of the building"
I think that that's perfectly reasonable.
> > 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".
This tells me what each does by way of
participating, but I still don't see anything
like a group here unless it is just the fact of
the perticpation being described in some
organized way. And that is just what a pluralist
would mean by "together," more or less.
What lifts the piano? The three men, right? What relation does Avery
have to the lifting of the piano then, if he doesn't lift it himself,
and he's not part of the mass that lifts it? (This is the same thing
as with Alice, and the things that should be noted there should be
noted here.)
There is no real explanation - none that I can think of, and none that
you've provided (correct me if I'm wrong). Yes, I can see how,
intuitively, one may think of it that way, but there are a lot of
things that we sense intuitively that are wrong. In order to
understand it, I need an explanation. This isn't an axiom we're
talking about here. You should be able to explain it. (By it, I mean
my question about Alice.)
> > 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".
Well, you haven't introduced any masses yet
either (aside from assuring me that they are
there). Back to the students around the
building. Each student occupies a place wrt the
building and other students, roughly (let's say)
that if simultaneously each student joined hands
with thei neighgbor on each side the result would
be a closed loop and the footpad of the building
(and little else?) is entirely inside the loop.
The way I am reading the claim, I think it
requires that each student intends to be part of
surrounding the building, but there are other
readings which don't demand that.
"part" implies being part of something to me. Does it not to you?
There are
problably more consitions but this seems to me to
be the essential one. The "together" of the
pluralist is just the fact that this pattern
requires all the students involved (which is
trivial) and perhaps that with many fewer
students similar patterns (that formed closed
loops arounf the building) are not possible --
certainly that no one student can form such a
pattern. Does the groupiness consist of anything
other than this? You've already said it is not a
thing over and above the students, so that the
You have the two "over and above"s confused. One refers to a thing
that something is by nature of being what it is (a dog is an animal,
since dogs are animals by nature). The other refers to things that are
aggeregates of other things. "Forest" being over and above "trees" is
different from "animal" being over and above "dog". You can say
"animal" when you have a dog in mind, but you can't say "forest" (or
"grove") unless you have a forest (or grove) in mind - which you
usually do, assuming that there are more than 6-10 trees.
It's not very often that someone gives you a specific answer when more
than X things are involved (X being perhaps 10ish). "What's going on
there?" "Some kids are carrying a bunch of chairs to the garden". But
"some kids" is clearly some sort of special plural predication, since
you don't mention the words "mass" or "group"! No, it isn't. The
average human will think of, say, a group of 20 kids massively, and
won't actually summon-to-mind 20 instances of "kid". "Some kids" in
this case refers to a mass of kids.
students form a pattern seems to be the most
obvious next choice. But that, of course, means
that for reality, it just says what the pluralist
says but in differnt words. If it is something
else, that you need to say what and demonstrate
that it really is there. It seems that the
pluralist says "there are these students and they
form this pattern" and the singularist says
"there is this pattern and the students for it"
Why this stife there be/'twixt Tweedle-Dum and
Tweedle-Dee?
My position is that you need an at least implicit group/mass, so that
you can expand (i.e. explain using more axiomic terms) things like
"lu'o" or "loi".
You seem to be contrary to this.
> > >
> > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications
> of
> > > being "among a group such that".
Well, of course it would; you are a believing
singularist. For a pluralist, "x is among y"
just means that x is one of the ys.
x is a referent of ys. Yes. But even for a pluralist, Alice is also a
referent of/among "the students (wearing hats)". Again, this doesn't
say anything of the difference between distributive/non-distributive.
> > 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?
Where? Go through the whole pluralist semantics
and nothing like a group turns up, just things,
one or several as the case may be. At the end of
it all, it is hard to say where the
unacknowledged group might be.
Ok, then use these pluralist semantics to (usefully!) explain the
relationship between Alice and "surrounds a building", as opposed to
Alice and "wear hats".
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".>>
I attribute it to the fact that there is no
difference except verbiage. You seem to think
that the mass form the explanation is right and
the the other wrong, which is odd if they are the
same explanation. However, this is all empty,
since we have neither explanation at hand yet (I
have tried to suply one but I don't know whether
you will buy it).
They're not the same explanation. One says that there is no mass:
Go through the whole pluralist semantics
and nothing like a group turns up, just things,
one or several as the case may be.
Right? So, no, not the same.
> > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students",
I
> > too
> > > > am "referring to many things".>>
I agree, but you seem to think that you are
actually referring to one thing, the group. At
least you talk that way.
Yes. That, or I'm saying "the students are [part of a group such that
that group surrounds the building]". Doesn't matter which, but both
involve "group"/"mass".
> 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. >>
Corporate masses (I don't much like that
terminology since it sugtgests more similarity
than I think justified)continue to be the same
even with a change of components; they also
inherit properties from their components
directly: if a component (acting as such) does or
is something, the corporation does or is, too.
This seems to have more to do with the details of when a person stops
calling something a mass. I don't think that we need to categorize
every mass into a certain type of mass in order to use them.
As for doing something, and having the corporation do it too, this too
I think has to do with unimportant details. It's not a fixed rule. To
give an example (that's perhaps more similar than justified), if a
salesperson makes a sale, the corporation makes a sale, but if that
salesperson gets the flu, the corporation doesn't have the flu. It's
not perfecly certain how each thing works out.
These things are details, and are not critical to the concept of a mass.
Corporations also have properties in which some
components do not participate. I suppose there
are other charateristics but these are enough to
separate then from ordinary (collective
predication) masses. Urgoo is the stuff of which
some kind of thing is made: all dogs are chunks
of Dog, for example -- as are dog organs and the
mixture that results from a steamroller rolling
over a pack of dogs. This is an actual mass-noun
concept.
Well, if your conception of "dog" extends to that, then sure. For me,
something stops being a dog when it gets rolled over - it becomes
"paste formed from a dog corpse". I'd still say "that dog has been
squished", or "we'll bury the dog", but it would be in the sense of
{lo pu gerku}, and not {lo ca gerku}.
So far as I can tell, Urgoo is like
corporations in some respects: it remains the
same even if its representations change, it
inherits propeties from its manifestations. It
differs in that it is homogenous, does not have
components, although the manifestations play a
somewhat similar role, but an Urgoo can exist
without any manifestations at all.
This is like an ideal mental form of something, that all things that
are it are composed of: {loi ro gerku}, or something of the sort.
I think these
two are enoguh different to justify some separate
consideration but both have been folded into the
muddle that is CLL mass.
I don't think that the distinction of corporate vs. non-corporate
entities needs to be made on such a raw level.
"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.>>
But you offer no evidence that it applies here.
"Together" is a real situation as well and I have
offered an explanation of what it means in
different terms. What does "is a mass composed
of" mean in different, neutral, terms. Failing
that we are just talking by one another, since we
are using language radically differently.
The evidence is a sensible explanation of what "the students surround
the building" means: "the students are part of a group that surrounds
the building".
Is that wrong? How is it wrong?
How is "the students surround the building" different from "the group
of students surrounds the building"? Actually different, and not in
terms of English frames or English pragmatics.
<<> 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 the 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.>>
But you, of course, have nowhere demonstrated
that "as a mass" is different from "together"
nor explained what it meant. You have asserted
I've explained many times what it meant.
"together the students surround the building" :
X is a mass, and each student is a component part of that mass
X surrounds the building
the students are part of a mass such that surrounds the building
I don't think that I need to prove that such a thing as "a
relationship between certain things" exists.
it is superior, but that is just your say-so. On
the other hand, if you really believe, as you
seem to be saying here, that the two expressions
mean the same thing, what is the argument all
about?
<<> Note that, if you do write pages explaining
the
> differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a
few
> uniform 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?>>
Gladly. Pleas provide the explanation for the
mass-talk form. Note, this will require saying
it without assuming masses or giving a fairly
complete formal system for masses.
A mass is a relationship like any other. Do you deny that such a
relationship ("x1 is a mass/aggregate/composition of x2 / x2 is a
component part of x1") exists? Do you deny that such a thing as a
(predicate) relationship exists?
I'm using perfectly established structures, in English or otherwise,
to do the explaining of how Alice relates. Predicate relationships,
and the idea of "x1 is a composite of component parts x2". Both are
established in both our minds, right?
You did say "Gladly". Could you now do this?
> 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.>>
Well, it does seem to have that meaning in my
dialect. That is, when I say "a bunch of things"
I am not implying that there is anything other
than those things there (not even necessarily
close together).
As I've said, you make it seem like I'm bringing in the concept of a
baboon to explain away this thing.
You really aren't bringing in anything new, because your mind probably
has "mass of 20 students" 'loaded' (though of course, the pragmatic
implications of "mass" and all the 'framing' that "mass" entails are
not loaded), because humans don't usually like to 'load' each of 20
students when they don't have to. "Mass of students, 20 component
parts" is good enough for most people.
I presumably have some reason
for dealing with them together but that is
nothing "out there" called "bunch," it is just
how I am dealing with them.
So there isn't anything out there? Or just nothing out there called
bunch? Because if there isn't anything out there, I can't imagine you
explaining what Alice's relationship is. With humor, I imagine
something like:
Alice is ? ? ?
? surrounds the building.
where "?" stands for "magic happens here".
Well, it's not magic. The "rational explanation", if you will, is that
Alice is part of a mass/group, the mass/group that surrounds the
building. If you have a different rational explanation, then please
offer it.
<<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.>>
Not clear at all, since I don't see any group
there, just students.
When I say "the *group* of students", you can't imagine a group?
If you mean "the group of
students" to say, in different words, just what
"the students together" says -- that is, without
No, "the students together" in your mind for some reason can't have
the same meaning as it does for me and the dictionary (1. In or into a
single group, mass, or place), it seems. We don't say the same things,
because your variant excludes any possibility of "mass" in order to
describe the relationship (it seems).
"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.>>
Then what the Hell is this argument about? One
person talks one way, the other the other, as
their taste leads them. And, of course, that is
just what the formalism says: whether you give a
pluralist or singularist interpretation to the
system, the logic is the same.
Ok, then you should have no problem telling me:
In "the students surround the building", Alice is part of the
mass/group that surrounds the building. Of course, we don't have the
same imagery invoked in our mind as is typically associated with
English "mass" or "group", but yes, it's a mass/group regardless. So
when I say "the students surrounded the building", I mean that Alice
is part of a mass such that surrounds the building. Same goes for
Bryce, Carol, David, etc.
Right?
> 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.>>
And the difference is...? I suppose it is
somethign that hold them all together, a common
interest them. that is something about us
usually, although it is often helped by
propinquity and short-chain causation and the
like.
The difference between what? A tree and a forest? A person and a crowd?
> 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.>>
Ah, that was the point of that story. It was not
very clear to me at the time. Your use of the
term "mass" is adding yet another meaning to that
already overworked word; can we find another word
for you concept.
It's not an overworked concept in the same way that "animal" is not an
overworked concept, because there are so many types of animals.
Water, which can be combined or reduced into more water is a mass. I'm
a mass. Just about everything is a mass. A crowd that makes noise is a
mass, even if some people in it are quiet. Or even if all people in it
are (relatively) quiet.
If you want to taxonomize and label all of these different things that
a mass can exhibit, or when certain masses stop being masses, or if
you can combine certain masses to form a mass that is considered to be
the same thing as the two masses were, go ahead. But it's still a
mass.
But in any case, I don't see
how this helps with the students: they do not
compose and organism or an organic whole, and
maybe not even an organization.
If 1000 people together do not compose a "crowd", then what is a
"crowd"? Just a way to refer to the 1000 conceptualizations of people
that you have "loaded" into your mind? Even if the crowd starts doing
things that none of the people do on their own?
They each fall
into a place in a pattern which we are taking as
significant and by virtue of which say they are
togethre. Is it also by virtue of this that we
say they are a mass? If not, what is involved?
If so, why are we having this argument (or, more
accurately, what the Hell are we arguing about,
sinc we see to agree on everything except what
words to use and that is merely a matter os style
and not open to argumentation).
Well, at first you seemed to deny that the concept of mass was used in
plural predication, but now you seem to deny that the concept of mass
(or group) exists at all. So that's what we seem to be arguing about.
> 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.>>
Huh!? There is a relationship of composition that
defines a mass, but a mass is not a relationship
(notice, by the way, that {gunma} is not a mass
of the sort you descibed earlier).
Is not mass of what sort?
It may also be
that the fact that things stand in a certain
relationship to one another is what gets them
into the mass, but the mass is not that
relationship either.
All (?) things (physical things, especially) are masses. Maybe the
strings of string theory aren't a mass, but everything else, we've
found it to be a mass. Tiny things, arranged pencil-wise, form a
pencil. Can everything be broken down into something else? Is
everything composed of something else? Yes.
The argument isn't really about this (I hope). It's about whether or
not an entity with parts:students can exist. I say that it can, and
frequently does. And I also say that this entity is the thing that
surrounds the building.
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?>>
Directly by each of them taking a place in a
pattern which constitutes surrounding the
building. You may call "taking a place" "forming
a group" but there is no necessity in doing so.
Ok, sure, that's another sensible way to think of it.
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu morna [la alis]
x3 can even be "surrounding-the-building-wise".
<<> 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
clearer
> 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?>>
Well, thinking of them as a group and thinking of
them as acting together.
Sure. So
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [la alis]
is a correct/complete way to express your pluralist "lo tadni cu sruri
lo dinju", right?