Some of the numerous drafts of this paper profited from the opinions of Professors Adam Morton and C.J.F. Williams, University of Bristol, the editors of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy and suggestions by an anonymous referee of Sorites. It was revised thanks to discussions on indexical arguments at ECAP II in Leeds in relation to the draft of another paper on indexicality presented there.
2. 1_2.
According to the description given in James E. Tomberlin (ed.) [1986], p. 414.
3. 1_3.
pp. 308, 345.
4. 1_4.
. 142.
5. 1_5.
. 347.
6. 1_6.
p. 29, 30, D.W. Hamlyn [1967].
7. 1_7.
. 87.
8. 1_8.
p. 353.
9. 1_9.
see pp. 5, 9, John Perry [1979].
10. 1_10.
p. 136.
11. 1_11.
p. 131.
12. 1_12.
p. 139.
13. 1_13.
p. 166 and p. 87 respectively.
14. 1_14.
p. 131, 148 in [1966].
15. 1_15.
p. 131.
16.16. 1_16.
p. 139, italics his.
17. 1_17.
p. 144, italics his.
18. 1_18.
p. 145.
19. 1_19.
p. 16.
20. 1_20.
cf. p. 88 in [1967]: «The references made by an indicator other than `I' are ephemeral, and necessarily eliminable for those who make them' Elimination is here a process of preserving information, not a process of analysis or of literal translation». (emphasis his)
21. 1_21.
p. 148.
22. 1_22.
p. 148.
23. 1_23.
p. 144.
24. 1_24.
pp. 150, 151.
25. 1_25.
cf. pp. 146, 147 [1966].
26. 1_26.
pp. 144, 145.
27. 1_27.
In [1967] Castañeda considers an interpretation that takes `I' in p2 to be indexical; see pp. 89-93.
28. 1_28.
pp. 143, 144 [1966].
29. 1_29.
It is also possible that Privatus does not make any sounds or written marks since in his apparently exhaustive exploration from (A) to (G) of candidates for replaceability Castañeda convincingly argues that an S-use is not to be replaced by expressions denoting bodies. It is possible that he just can not make explicit statements.
30. 1_30.
pp. 143, 144 [1966].
31. 1_31.
p. 166.
32. 1_32.
p. 87.
33. 1_33.
p. 78 [1991a].
34. 1_34.
p. 77 [1991a].
35. 1_35.
p. 79 [1991a].
36. 1_36.
p. 195 [1991b].
37. 1_37.
p. 11, John Perry [1979].
38. 1_38.
p. 150 [1966].
39. 1_39.
p. 134 [1966]; the 1966 example of weight (p.152) finds its way into the 1969 paper (p. 164).
40. 1_40.
Hinshelwood discusses analogous cases to this thought experiment, which are «social» relocations of personal identity, in [1995].
41. 1_41.
42. 2_1.
I am grateful to José Benardete for this point.
43. 2_2.
I am grateful to Peter van Inwagen for this point.
44. 2_3.
I would like to thank Thomas McKay for comments on a previous draft of this paper.
45. 3_1.
The notion of fuzzy set was first endowed with a formal treatment by Lofti Zadeh in 1965. A huge literatures has at this stage been published developing its theory and applications in an impressive variety of fields.
46. 3_2.
The proof that the thus weakened truth theory still contains contradictions (in virtue or the previously attained result that, for some ┌p┐, ∴~T#p<=>p) involves abduction rules for the noncontraposible conditional `⇒', namely p⇒~p ∴ ~p and ~p⇒p ∴ p -- although the point is not made quite clear in the text. The whole treatment is somehow marred by the fact that `⇒' is not provided with an English reading; and, once contraposition has been junked for it, I surmise that not everybody will accept the abduction rules. If you relinquish the naive simplicity underlying the original T schema -- namely that ┌p┐'s truth is just the fact that p (with the strongest biimplication thus linking the fact that p with ┌p┐ being true)--, I guess some contradiction-averting manoeuvres become less implausible: e.g. refusing to accept either of the abduction rules for conditional `⇒'.
47. 3_3.
Thanks are due to Graham Priest and Francisco J.D. Ausín for helpful comments on an early draft of this review, which was written in Canberra during my stay as Visiting Scholar at the Research School of Social Sciences of the Australian National University (1992-1993). The delay in publishing the review is entirely my own fault -- the only excuse being that I have long harboured doubts on whether my objections to Priest's approach were as cogent as I wanted them to be. That is now for the reader to judge.
48. 4_1.
Unfortunately we cannot yet handle TeX or LaTeX files. The convertors we've tried have proved useless.
49. 4_2.
At our home site, ftp.csic.es, there is -- hanging from our main directory /pub/sorites -- a subdirectory, WWW, which, among other files, contains one called `HTML.howto', wherein the interested reader can find some useful information on HTML editors and convertors.
50. 4_3.
For the time being, and as a service to our readers and contributors, we have a directory called `soft' hanging from our home directory /pub/sorites at the node ftp.csic.es. The directory contains some of the non-commercial software we are referring to, such as archivers or 8-to-7 encoders (or 7-to-8 decoders).
51. 4_4.
In the case of WordPerfect 5.1, the procedure is as follows. Suppose you have a file called `dilemmas.wp5' in your directory c:\articles, and you want to submit it to SORITES. At your DOS prompt you change to your directory c:\articles. We assume your WordPerfect files are in directory c:\WP51. At the DOS prompt you give the command `\wp51\convert'; when prompted you reply `dilemmas.wp5' as your input file whatever you want as the output file -- suppose your answer is `dilemmas.ker'; when prompted for a kind of conversion you choose 1, then 6. Then you launch you communications program, log into your local host, upload your file c:\articles\dilemmas.ker using any available transmission protocol (such as Kermit, e.g.). And, last, you enter your e_mail service, start an e_mail to to <sorites@ifs.csic.es> and include your just uploaded dilemmas.ker file into the body of the message. (What command serves to that effect depends on the e_mail software available; consult your local host administrators.)
With WordPerfect 6 the conversion to kermit format is simple and straightforward: you only have to save your paper as a `kermit (7 bits transfer)' file.
52. 5_1.
The reader may find an excellent discussion of copyright-related issues in a FAQ paper (available for anonymous FTP from rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.209] rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/law/Copyright-FAQ). The paper is entitled «Frequently Asked Questions about Copyright (V. 1.1.3)», 1994, by Terry Carroll. We have borrowed a number of considerations from that helpful document.