WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Revised species (eliminating species)

posts: 2388

A> Yes. Not doing so is the temptation that kills so many attempts to do things with properties. P overlaps Q in no wise gurantees that S(P) mingles with S(Q), though the converse does seem to hold. thus the compromise given. And, of course, in the intensional contexts, the mingling is largely irrelevant. I wish I could think of a way around this since the dual system is irritating. but I can't see it — except to reverse the procedure and make the intensional the norm and add a special clause for all the intensional ones. And that is merely a stylistic difference, without substance. If your system really works the way you claim and your understanding of overlap is the same as mine, then your system is seriously flawed in a more concrete way than usual.

B> I am not sure you can pull this off and still get a meaningful transfer of negations. To be sure, negation doesn't transfer as nicely as one would like anyhow, but it does doe so in enough cases to make it useful to be able to mark it. And, of course, we need in any case to be able to say that P does overlap -Q.

C> Not one and only one, but at least one. A given set may be the extension of several intensions, but each intension determines a unique set (which may be equally determined by some ther intension). I see that is not clear and that I use it ambiguously later. I'll clean it up.

D> Yes; see above.

E> If they are ic and pervade one another, they are identical — is the way it goes. I'm not sure that these are cases of that sort, but, since the connection seems analytic, I suppose they are. The exception is the null property, the "nexus" of no semantic threads. I suppose that "nothingness" comes about as close as any natural language can come to expressing it.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
I'm not sure I have digested everything yet, but here are
some comments.

pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} iff *P overlaps Q and S(P)
> intersects S(Q)
> Remember, “intersects” is a more stringent requirement
> than mere mingling.

A>Is it really necessary to separate intensional broda from
the rest? With XS-lo, the interpretation would be P overlaps Q
whatever brode is. (B>And any {naku} would say that P does not
overlap Q, not that it does overlap ~Q.)

> For every property P there is a set S(P) = {x : Px}
> For every set s, there is a property P(s) such that s = {x :P(s)x}

C>Does this mean that for each P there is one and only one set S(P),
and for each s there is one and only one property P(s)? The second
one doesn't sound right.

> So, s = M(P(s)) and P = P(M(P))

D>If there can be many properties corresponding to the same set, then
the first one might mean that for any P(s), s=M(P(s)), the second
one that there is some P(M(P)) such that P=P(M(P))

> i is an individual concept iff i is a property that pervades
> no other property. (i may overlap any number of other property
> and – with at most one exception – does.)

E>The concepts "... is 2" and "... is 1+1" seem to pervade each other,
so neither is an individual concept. (Or are they both the same
concept?) What would be an example of an individual concept? What
is the possible exception, "nothingness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail