Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA01432 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 1 Feb 2000 18:19:21 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:05:56 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <8a.b1c8a1.25c81ebe@aol.com> Message-Id: <00020116184101.00319@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000, VANWYHE@aol.com wrote:
>Robin Faichney writes:
>"I'm not sure "figurative" is exactly right. I'd say molecules exist at a
>higher level of organisation than atoms. Would you call that "figurative"?
> Yes.
>Simply put, this language is based on a heierarchical metaphor (see G. Lakoff
>& M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago, 1980).
>Literally bundles of atoms are not "higher" than any old atom- what frame of
>reference does this appeal to?? Using the word higher inadvertently invokes a
>differential valuation game- and it is non-literal, hence my use of the word
>figurative, which I stick by.
I'd have thought that the arrangement of atoms in molecules (and of those in
organelles, cells, organs, etc) is a literal hierarchy. OK, so in *any*
hierarchy, "higher" does not mean "further from the centre of the earth", but
so what? Does that really mean the expression is useless? What's the
alternative?
>I frankly think your notion of evolution of the commonalities between brain
>information and material artefacts totally spurious. Similarity between
>different kinds of matter- like brain information and hunks of wood or paper
>are not a distinct stuff (i.e. *similarity* is not an additional material).
>So you are proposing the evolution of no stuff at all!
When something looks as stupid as this does to you, don't you suspect
you may be misunderstanding it? I mean, how stupid are you willing to believe
we are, who take such concepts seriously? Shouldn't we be offended?
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 18:19:22 GMT