> At 09:37 AM 8/5/98 -0600, Ken Kittlitz wrote:
>
> >>Humans are animals.
> >>Humans are not animals.
> >>
> >>Doesn't it depend on context and interpretation?
> >
> >Good question... I'm not sure both can be true in the same context. For
> >example, if you believe the first statement, I don't think you can believe
> >the second one. Or at least, *I* couldn't. I mght be able to say that
> >humans are "special" animals, or that they have capabilities beyond those
> >of most other animals, but offhand I can't think of a situation in which I
> >would say that humans aren't animals. Can you think of a context in which
> >both statements are true?
>
> Humans seem to have a dual nature. We certainly share a lot of
> physical characteristics with animals, and in many cases behave
> like animals. However the thing that makes someone human is
> language-based consciousness (the substrate of memes). I can
> imagine a conscious agent (perhaps an artificial organism) that
> is human for all intents and purposes, but not an animal.
>
> Maybe the alleged level-3 ability of being able to hold two
> contradictory beliefs simultaneously true is just a realization
> that definitions and categories are necessarily fuzzy. The
> paradox goes away when you elaborate the statement "Humans are
> [not] animals" to "Some humans are [not] animals" or "Humans
> are often [not] like animals".
>
> Which are the following statement are true? Or put another
> way, how true are the following statements?
>
> I have a body.
> I am hosted by a body.
> I have a mind.
> I host memes.
> My mind hosts memes.
> My brain hosts memes.
> I am a meme.
> I am a set of memes.
> --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
Memetics and semiotics could mutually benefit from a knowledge of
each other. Joe