Re: virus: Memetic Engineering

Ken Kittlitz (ken@audesi.com)
Thu, 06 Aug 1998 13:04:40 -0600


At 12:51 PM 8/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:18 AM 8/6/98 -0600, Ken Kittlitz wrote:
>
>>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
>
>I think they would also have to agree on what is meant by "humans" and
>"are", and what constitutes "good" "evidence" :-)

Well, yeah ;->

>>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"?
>
>I think people actually do get quite far without identical definitions.
>But you're right, discussions tend to be more productive if the
>participants are on the same page more or less.

After a bit more thought, I've decided that the important thing is for the
particpants to have a decent understanding of what each other means by
terms like "animal," even if the definitions don't agree.
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@audesi.com
AudeSi Technologies Inc. http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
http://www.audesi.com