[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 04:08:10PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > su'u...kamse'i is not supposed to return the person, but the identity of
> > the person. If it returns the person, it's useless! My self-ness is my
> > uniqueness, but it's not me. I have hair, my self-ness doesn't
>
> I see; So I was confused over what you mean by identity (I was
> thinking in the math sense where the identity just returns itself
> (1 * 4 = 4, etc))
>
> So; what *is* the identity of something, if not the thing itself?
> In some logics it is viewed as the class containing only that thing,
> but I don't think that works here..
I now understand that xod is talking about a haecceity -- the
properties that make an individual that indidividual and not some
other individual. One way to model this is indeed as the class
containing only that thing, so long as the class is defined
intensionally.
I don't think we really need a NU for this, but it's how I choose
to interpret {me}. So {me lai xod} = "has the properties that
make something xod and not any other individual", "xoddity".
> "ka ce'u xunre kei be mi" is precisely the same as "du'u mi xunre" because
> you reduced the lambda variable. (it is (\x: xunre(x))[mi] == xunre(mi))
I don't think {du'u mi xunre} is the same as {mi xunre} or
{mi poi'i ke'a xunre}. So if {ka ce'u xunre mi} means {du'u mi
xunre} (and I can see why you think it would), then ka with x2+
won't replace poi'i.
> "jei mi xunre" is the truth value of "I am red". In a lot of
> contexts this will simply be a T or an F. This is the same as "ni
> mi xunre kei be lesi'o jetnu". This is *not* affected by any
> concerns as to how red you are
>
> What you *actually* want is "ni mi xunre". "ni" is a more general
> version of "jei" which allows you to use whatever scale makes sense
> instead of just the scale of truth of the proposition (in this case
> it's probably a scale of luminousity or whatever). To be frank 90%
> of the usage of "jei" which I see from you should be "ni", because
> you're almost never actually talking about truth values, but rather
> the extent or degree of whatever it is (which has nothing to do
> with the truth of a proposition[1])
>
> [1] even in fuzzy logics this has nothing to do with anything. My
> understanding is that a logic with infinite truth values ranging
> 0-1 considers the value of the expression to be a measure of our
> certainty of its truth (or whatever). It has nothing to do with
> whether the thing is 10lumens brighter or whatever. (I have no
> idea how much a lumen is, btw)
These matters were thoroughly thrashed out a couple of months ago,
and although I don't think we agreed on a disambiguation of ni,
we did agree that, roughly speaking, a jei scale can be projected
from a ni scale, or that in some ways the two scales can be seen
as two ways of measuring/categorizing the same thing.
--And.