From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Feb 04 07:08:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Feb 2002 15:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 56408 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2002 15:08:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Feb 2002 15:08:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2002 15:08:51 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:42:50 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:08:44 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:08:25 +0000 To: lojban Subject: RE: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban]Bibletranslation style question) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Xod: #On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Craig wrote: #> If you feel this way, then you at least imply that a footprint has a tru= th #> value! # #If I already agreed that a puff of smoke can have a truth value, do you #think I'll hesitate to claim the same about a footprint? What gives it its #truth value is nothing more than the awareness that it will be interpreted #by someone as meaning anything. E.g. if I tread on the ground and leave a footprint so as to communicate to someone that I have trodden there, the footprint is true, whereas if I carve the footprint with a spatula so as to communicate to someone=20 that I have trodden there, the footprint is false? Well, anyway, I wonder if we should try a different tack. On the one hand we have=20 indexicals: fire : smoke treading : footprint punch in belly : unh computer crash : Oh fuck happiness : ui nonindexical mi gleki ko'a ba gleki With the indexicals, the first of each pair tends to lead to the existence of the second, and the second tends not to exist without having been caused by the first. Consequently, on encountering the second, we can infer the existence of the first. I don't think that this is the case with the nonindexicals. It is not the case that whenever someone will be wearing a purple scarf to work on 3 March 2132, someone says to me "Someone will be wearing a=20 purple scarf to work on 3 March 2132". Nor is it demonstrably the case that on the whole, whenever someone says to me "Someone will=20 be wearing a purple scarf to work on 3 March 2132", someone will be wearin= g a purple scarf to work on 3 March 2132. > >I haven't agreed that UI has a truth value, but if you are happy with > >what I said then presumably all we disagree about is what counts as > >a truth value. Certainly "real" and "fake" are not to my mind the > >same as "true" and "false". > > However, since 'true' and 'real' are interchangeable in some dialects of > English, as are 'fake' and 'false', speakers of these dialects whorfishly > tend not to distinguish. But now that you mention it, there is a real > difference - the footprint isn't real (it isn't actually a footprint), bu= t > it isn't false (it expresses nothing, true or false). It expresses something if it was intended to mean something, and it was perceived to mean something. --=20 The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com=20 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20