Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletranslation style question)

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:03:51 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote:

> Xod:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > Xod:
> > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Xod:
> > > >
> > > > How do you intend to prove to me that ".ui" lacks a truth value?
> > >
> > > Maybe someone will come up with further arguments, but I offer this:
> > > the reasoning that would give ui a truth value would also give
> > > smiles and frowns truth values, and could be further pursued to
> > > give smoke a truth value (smoke is true iff there is fire; from
> > > the presence of smoke one can deduce the presence of fire). It leads
> > > to a reductio ad absurdum, whereby the valid and useful notion of
> > > propositionality is destroyed.
> >
> > ".ui" is an utterance; a symbol intended to exchange meaning.
>
> We disagree about this. Not all words are used with the intention
> of exchanging meaning. Questions, statements and commands are so
> used, but when the computer crashes & I exclaim "O fuck!" I do
> not intend to exchange meaning. Likewise for "ouch", etc.

People sometimes say "Oh, fuck!" and "Ouch!" as utterances in discussions
to communicate their state of emotions. The fact that at other times, the
ingrained communicative habit triggers an ejaculation outside of a
discussion is caused by, and not parallel to, their original communicative
function.

Are you going to try to convince me that there are words that were created
and taught with the intent of private, internal use, and that are never
intended for interpersonal communication? Once you manage to do that, and
then prove that the Book teaches that UI are similarly not intended for
interpersonal communication, then I will agree with you. Good luck.

> As for whether "ui" is a symbol, that depends which set of
> semiotic terminology we're using.

Only if you intend to derail this discussion with a bizarre definition of
"symbol" which, as previous distortions, judiciously sketches its
conceptual boundary to exclude my case. If you insist upon destroying the
useful meaning of the term "symbol" with such antics, I'll migrate to
another word, because I'm not really discussing word definitions but
rather the ideas and relationships behind them.

There are a sufficient number of people that will agree that an entity
with spoken and written incarnations and a socially agreed meaning is a
"symbol".

But there is a fundamental
> difference between "ui" and "mi gleki". With "ui" there is, normally,
> a causal connection between being happy and saying "ui", and this
> is not the case with "mi gleki".

Well, only a liar (or actor, etc) would say "mi gleki" if they weren't
actually le gleki.

Of course, a speaker can dissemble
> and say "ui" when not actually happy, but likewise one can carefully
> carve a footprint in the ground using a spatula to falsely create
> the impression that someone has trodden there. A 'footprint' not made
> by treading is a fake footprint, and a "ui" said when not happy is
> a fake "ui".

Well, you've agreed that UI has a truth value. I wish I had read this part
first before I wasted time responding to the rest. I'm glad you've come
around!

> > Is smoke? If
> > we're arranged that smoke has a certain meaning, and the signal is sent
> > but the condition to which it maps is not met, the smoke is a lie.
>
> Okay, but I deny that "ui" is a prearranged signal for me to use to
> communicate to you that I'm happy. Rather, "ui" is a conventional
> part of my behaviour; it's what I say when I'm happy.

Is it really? Did the idea come spontaneously forth from your childhood
habits? Or did you read about it in a book? Shall we now argue the
definition of "pre-arranged"? Selmaho UI was created, not discovered.

-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.