Re: useless example #400

• Previous message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: Pierce"
• In reply to: Wade T. Smith: "useless example #400"
• Next in thread: Wade T. Smith: "Re: useless example #400"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

>
> On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 08:52 AM, Joe wrote:
>
> > Memes are a subclass of knowledge - that subclass that can be
> > communicated. Of course, it requires a triple-digit IQ to grok
> > this.
>
> Who ever said, and proved, that knowledge needs subclasses?
>
It is obvious. You know your perceptions, but you can't communicate them. You cannot stuff your perceptual perspective in another's head. However, you CAN describe it in words. Communication does NOT communicate the THING ITSELF, but ABOUT it. All meaning has this property of reference, or 'aboutness". Thus there are experiences, which are not communicable, and descriptions of them, which are.
>
> - Wade
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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

• Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Pierce"
• Previous message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: Pierce"
• In reply to: Wade T. Smith: "useless example #400"
• Next in thread: Wade T. Smith: "Re: useless example #400"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 24 May 2003 - 21:25:12 GMT