From xod@sixgirls.org Sat Feb 10 21:56:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 05:56:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 91994 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 05:56:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 05:56:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 06:57:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1B5ueC01984 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:56:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:56:39 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:imaginary worlds(MORE VERBOSE) In-Reply-To: <91.6bef899.27b74db6@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Invent Yourself On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 4. What restrictions are placed on a thing that satisfies in world = 2 > some description that in world 1 was=C2=A0satisfied=C2=A0 bythe holder of= the name?=C2=A0 > Essence,vishesha, is just numerical identity and a useful sense of a name= (it > solves the problem of why =E2=80=9CVenus =3D Venus=E2=80=9D is necessary = while =E2=80=9CHesperus =3D > Phosphorus=E2=80=9D is not), but carries no properties with it.=C2=A0On t= he other hand, > the name, per se, carries neither properties nor numerical identity and s= o is > useless for most hypotheticals, which come down to laws, relations among > predicates eventually.=C2=A0The predicate thus comes in somehow =E2=80=93= and how else but > by description? > None of this makes a name ordinarily a disguised description=E2=80=93 nor= a rigid > designator, for that matter.=C2=A0But in hyptheticating context, the (wel= l, a) > connotation of the name comes to function as its sense, the means to pick= out > the right person in the new world, so that we can then argue for or from = some > law or observation, what someone like Socrates in (often not very clearly= ) > specified ways would do as an Irish washerwoman.=C2=A0 So our intererest = is > neither in the thing nor the name, but in something two removes from eith= er.=C2=A0 So are the sorts of tangles we have to face when we take a camel to Alaska. In an alternate world, Socrates might mean the same character (who also exists in that world), or there could be two Socrateses. Maybe there is a fellow named Socrates who was a famous athlete, or no Socrates at all. Or a Socrates, familiar to our world as Socrates, but he was named Sylvester instead. The bottom line: a name is meaningful only relative to certain listeners, and those listeners are in the same world as the speaker. There are NO guarantees as to the meaning of a name when its taken out of its universe of discourse. Thus, such speculation is actually meaningless. --- I am very suspicious of this vishesha concept. It sounds a lot to me like a soul! When we deal with people we run into quaint social notions of "identity" and character and the rest. What vishesha can a black wooden table be proven to have? --- In Physics there is the interesting idea that if two things are identical, they are in fact the same thing. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!