WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Revised species (eliminating species)

posts: 2388

A>Well, I think we were talking about thinks like either {su'o broda cu brode} or {lo broda cu brode}, in both of which mingling is relevant. Sure, if it weren't we could ignore it, but it almost always is — and certainly is in the cases where I have called for it.

B> That it can't distinguish between overlap and mingling when the distinction is crucial — as it usually is.

C> {me} can't be the magic bullet for solving all problems (though I have to admit that JCB used it thus for a while. But even if it were, why would we want this periphrasis in place of a straightforward distinction that was nicely built into the language 50 years ago and hasn't been challenged up to now (though occasionally misused)?

D> ISuppose they are intesnionally distinct; what follows from that is that they do not pervade one another. To be sure, it is hard to imagine a world in which they had different extensions, but, if they are intensionally distinct, there must be at; least one such, which proves they do not pervade one another. In a word, the two concepts, intensionally distinct and pervade one another, do not hang together. An individual concept is a property unique to a — real or imaginary — individual.
Jorge LlambĂ­as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
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.

A>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.

B>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.

C>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.

D>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