WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Revised species (eliminating species)

posts: 1912

pc:
> 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.

Why "thus"? The assumption seems to be that we must guarantee mingling
whenever mingling could be relevant, but I don't see why that is such
an absolute requirement. We have other ways to guarantee mingling: {su'o
broda cu brode}.

> 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.

What is the flaw?

> 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.

We have ways of saying that: {lo broda cu me lo na brode} is the most
obvious one. Or, if you still don't know what {me} means, use whatever
relationship expresses overlap between the two arguments {lo broda} and
{lo na brode}. Using naku, which denies that a relationship holds, to
affirm instead that some other relationship holds is, in my opinion,
an unnecessary complication. (And you will have to deal with negation
in the multiple argument cases too, which don't convert so easily to
overlap talk.)

> 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.

OK. Not sure what you will be using "individual concepts" for, then.
"...is 2" and "...is 1+1" are intensionally different, i.e. different
properties, even though by your definition they are the same individual
concept.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail