Re: <djuno> & <xusra> (Was Knowledge & Belief)

[Julian Pardoe <jbdp@cix.compulink.co.uk>]

In-Reply-To: <199712312222.WAA07619@mail-relay.compulink.co.uk>
Steven Belknap said:
> I suggested the change in thread name because we are being
> distracted by the semantics of natlangs

Are we?  I think that we are being distracted by the
philosophical issues of what it means to know.  I guess what we
tying to is to come up with a (not necessarily consistent) set
of meanings for the "to know".  We can then assign a Lojban word
to each.  (Since the Book is out these words may have to be
lujvo.)  The set of meanings won't be consistent because we're
not trying to solve the philosophical problem.  If we have
overlapping or contradictory meanings in our set that's fine:
we're trying to please everybody.  Trouble is, the set might be
to culturally dependent; we should try and avoid that by
covering non-Western concepts of belief.

Anyway, Steven: you gave the example of Jane saying "I know that
it will snow tomorrow".  What does "know" mean here?  Even in
Lake Woebegone[sp? -- may be I should say "la leik[.] uobegon."
-- ahh, it's in the dictionary] or Yakutsk no one can _know_
that it will snow tomorrow.  Can "know" mean more than "predict"
here?

How about "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."?  I don't know if
the problem of induction is generally considered solved these
days, but I consider it solved by what I call the Popper/Pascal
approach.  We don't know that anything that quantum mechanics
might say is true.  (We thought we knew things that Newtonian
mechanics said until Einstein came along.)  However, just as
Pascal's argument for belief in God advocates a kind of "fail
safe" approach, it is sensible to act /as if/ the sun /will/
rise tomorrow.  In that sense I can say I "know" that the sun
will rise tomorrow (and that there will be snow on the ground in
Yakutsk).  We might call it inductive or experiential knowledge.
 Does lojban have word for this?  It doesn't cover Pascal though
-- I don't think he really "knows" there is a God -- and I think
God knows this.  Aha!  Another kind of knowledge:
omniscient[ial] knowledge zo'o.

It this were a newsgroup (why isn't there one -- the Book is
out: we need the publicity) I'd suggest moving the discussion to
a sci.lojban.philosophy zo'o[*].

-- jP --

[*] I use too many "!"s and some should really be ":-)"s but I
thought I'd try attitudinals.  I once called a project meeting
in the pub and was asked "Is this serious or a joke?"  Since I
am me it was both.  How would I say <mixed-zo'o-and-zo'onai>?
If I said {zo'o zo'onai} would once override the other or would
it give the mixed meaning?