From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 10 14:30:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 10 Oct 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 88544 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 10 Oct 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.12f.5ca7179 (4402) for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12f.5ca7179.28f617f9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:30:33 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] "knowledge as to who saw who" readings To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12f.5ca7179.28f617f9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_12f.5ca7179.28f617f9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/10/2001 12:10:47 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > I take your point about your version of Set-of-Answers, but it doesn't seem > to help us in the more general problem of reporting the beliefs of others. > The problem is: how do I describe John's belief when I know its > truthconditions but not its particular propositional and intensional form? > As a rough approximation, the best I have come up with so far is that it is an answer that jibes extensionally with some standard answer, where standard answers are the ones that just replace the qwords with simplest sorts of expressions. This is a miniscule step -- and maybe not a step at all -- but it seems realistically as far as we can go at the moment. --part1_12f.5ca7179.28f617f9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/10/2001 12:10:47 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I take your point about your version of Set-of-Answers, but it doesn't seem
to help us in the more general problem of reporting the beliefs of others.
The problem is: how do I describe John's belief when I know its truthconditions but not its particular propositional and intensional form?

As a rough approximation, the best I have come up with so far is that it is an answer that jibes extensionally with some standard answer, where standard answers are the ones that just replace the qwords with simplest sorts of expressions.  This is a miniscule step -- and maybe not a step at all -- but it seems realistically as far as we can go at the moment.
--part1_12f.5ca7179.28f617f9_boundary--