Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA21801 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:58:17 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 18:55:29 -0700 From: "Scott Chase" <hemidactylus@my-Deja.com> Message-ID: <LCJLPHAFJIEGNBAA@my-deja.com> X-Sent-Mail: off X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb X-Sender-Ip: 209.240.200.181 Organization: My Deja Email (http://www.my-deja.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Length: 3033 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
--On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:22:15 John Wilkins wrote: >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:47:13 +1000 ddiamond@ozemail.com.au (Chris >Lofting) wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On >>Behalf >>> Of Vincent Campbell >>> Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2000 7:39 >>> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk' >>> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb >>> >>> >>> Thanks for this. >>> >>> You've sprung me on Wittgenstein here, as this is a general sense >>> of what I >>> thought one of Wittgenstein's views was, and not something I can cite >>page >>> refs for. The bit I'm thinking of is the notion that a 'cat' is >>> not a 'cat' >>> because the word contains some essence of the object it is >>describing, but >>> only because 'cat' means 'not a dog', 'not a cow' etc. etc. >> >>This is the viewpoint from the ~A where we can identify something by >>what it >>isnt; we use context to shine light on the text. Negation is just >>another >>'harmonic' as far as the world of ~A is concerned. Science uses this a >>lot, >>especially in QM etc .. problem is that it is a bit like Plato's cave >>and so >>we have to wrestle with shadows :-) > >I'll get back to the other posts in a bit, when I get some spare time, >but a passing comment: > >What you are referring to here is what Aristotle called a "privative >definition": An invertebrate is an animal without a backbone, for >example. The problem with privative predicates is that there is an >indefinite number of things something is *not*. If one says, for >example, that mammals evolved from non-mammals, do we mean they evolved >from rocks? Rocks are, after all, non-mammals. Meaning cannot, without a >severe narrowing of the semantic possibility space, be privative. > > "Invertebrate" (unlike vertebrate) is a somewhat useless taxonomic name in the sense of being a catch all which includes many varied groups such as molluscs, insects, and arachnids for instance. It's like saying: "Those animals with backbones versus all those other things without them."
There's another group of animals within the vertebrates called agnathans which are defined as lacking a jaw. I guess this fits with the privative deal you're talking about, since it encompasses several varied groups such as lampreys and hagfish and some other groups which are extinct. OTOH, the group of animals with jaws (gnathostomes) might carry more clout as a designation (though I'm about as diffident as I can get when babbling about topics to someone who has the philosophical acumen to blow me out of the water if I get too sloppy ;-)).
But, when I hear the words agnathan or invertebrate, I'm pretty sure the person isn't referring to rocks. I'd assume they are at least referring to animals (specifically somewhere within the metazoans), but still this privative definition deal must apply I guess.
Scott
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy.
=============================================================== 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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 02:59:01 BST