From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 06:30:33 GMT
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 01:11 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > That there is such a thing as a second tree ( for under your rubric,
> > every tree has to have its own, nonrelational name).
>
> Hmmm.
>
> I don't see that I'm saying that, at all.
>
> I demand not only a second tree, and then a third one, but, never a
> first one twice.
>
> Names?
>
> When did they enter into it?
>
> - Wade
>
When we see three pine trees in a row, according to you, they all have
to have individual names (just as all behaviours are individual, just so
must all objects be). This makes the (sub) category 'pine' useless, just
as it makes the category 'tree'. For your scheme to work. But it
doesn't.
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 2.1.5 : Thu 17 Oct 2002 - 06:35:34 GMT