From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 29 19:33:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 30 Sep 2001 02:31:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 41139 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2001 02:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 30 Sep 2001 02:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2001 02:33:00 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.39]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010930023258.OXPO710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 03:32:58 +0100 Reply-To: To: "John Cowan" Cc: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] Set of answers encore Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 03:32:15 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3BB20930.5050609@reutershealth.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta wrote: > > > John believes that Bill's age is the cube root of 389017. > > > > ... when John has the thought "It is the case that Bill is 73". > > This example makes me wonder how much of the issue is epistemology, > and how much is the conventions of indirect discourse. > > Suppose it is 1959, and Kemal is looking at the night sky. He > sees a bright object, he knows not what, rise in the west, > transit the entire sky in some 20-30 minutes, and set in the east. > > Would either of you object to the sentence "Kemal saw that Echo was > orbiting the Earth", on the grounds that Kemal did not have the > thought "Echo is orbiting the Earth", since Kemal knows nothing > of Echo and perhaps nothing of orbiting? > > How about the simpler sentence "Kemal saw Echo"? Surely this one > is not controversial: one may see something without knowing its > name. If there is a difference, what is the difference? I think we will find ourselves wanting to distinguish between, on the one hand Echo visually-impinged on Kemal Visual-stimulus caused Kemal to believe a proposition that is true iff Echo was orbiting the Earth and on the other hand Kemal was conscious that Echo visually-impinged on Kemal (= Visual-stimulus caused Kemal to believe that Echo visually- impinged on Kemal) Visual-stimulus caused Kemal to believe that Echo was orbiting the Earth IOW, what I am trying to say is that the intensional/extensional distinction carries over to all cognitive/perceptual predicates. I believe that the mainstream view among lojbanists is that everything receives the extensional reading, except for LE du'u sumti, which are intensional. --And.