From jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Wed Mar 28 14:31:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jimc@math.ucla.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 28 Mar 2001 22:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5774 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2001 22:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Mar 2001 22:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO simba.math.ucla.edu) (128.97.4.125) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2001 22:31:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (jimc@localhost) by simba.math.ucla.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2SMV4800566 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:31:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: simba.math.ucla.edu: jimc owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:31:04 -0800 (PST) To: lojban Subject: Re: [PHIL] djuno: the key issue (was: [lojban] Random lojban questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: "James F. Carter" On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, And Rosta wrote: > # (--snip--) > So you deny that "crucially, the known must be true in the epistemology"? > It is enough that the x1 claim that the known is true? So if on the basis > of our common epistemology you believed that Sydney was the capital > of Australia, I could say "John djuno that Sydney is the cap. of A, fo > our mutual epistemology"? All you zombies are just figments of my imagination. I know what's real and what's true, and if you claim that my djuno x4 doesn't entail x2, then you're just wrong. However, you figments of imagination do have a tendency to make similar claims (that I'm wrong) when I take you to task about entailment, and to make sense of this nuthouse, I have to take into account a common thread or pattern in how entailment goes. This pattern is mistakenly referred to as ``objective reality'', and statements seeming to match objective reality are more likely to go unchallenged. Purely hypothetically I might consider how a figment of imagination might think, and how it might in a limited sense be similar to how I, the Ultimate Master, might think, and it's clear from usage that when you say "djuno" about x1 = yourself, or x1 = someone else, you are imputing a (baseless) arrogance to x1, in that x1 is the sole judge of whether x4 entails x2. This is And's definition version II. Sorry to extend this already long-winded thread, but I can't imagine a person so lacking in healthy solipsism, egocentricity and arrogance as to embrace version I (that djuno x4 ``actually does'' entail x2 independent of whether x1 does or doesn't believe in the entailment). James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)