Re: virus: Memetic Engineering
Ken Kittlitz (ken@audesi.com)
Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:18:35 -0600
At 09:49 AM 8/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 05:45 PM 8/5/98 -0600, Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
>>Not if animals is defined in exactly the same way for both.
>
>True, but what is the objectively correct definition of "animal"?
>I'm suggesting that there is no such thing, and if that's true
>then conflicting truth values with respect to statements like
>"humans are animals" are inevitable. Like Richard, I see little
>point in arguing over the truth of such a proposition. However I
>do see value in discussing the implications of the position:
>"if humans are animals, then ...?". I admit the distinction is
>a subtle one, but I see it as exploring a model as opposed to
>advocating one.
I think I agree with you... I too believe that there is no objectively
correct definition of "animal", but would suggest that apparent
disagreements over statements such as "humans are animals" disappear if the
parties involved can agree on what is meant by "animal". Arriving at a
common definition seems to me to be vital to further exploration of the
model: how far would we get in our discussion of "if humans are animals,
then..." if we have different conceptions of "animal"?
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@audesi.com
AudeSi Technologies Inc. http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
http://www.audesi.com