Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA19266 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:07:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:44:33 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: the conscious universe Message-ID: <20001001204433.A1104@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001001192848.AAA26404@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001001192848.AAA26404@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.187]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:28:52PM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:28:52PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Robin Faichney --
>
> >This is a
> >"discovered conceptual truth" -- a matter for philosophy, not empiricial
> >science.
>
> A 'discovered conceptual truth'.
>
> Oh, boy.
Consider this: if P then Q; P; therefore Q.
That is a conceptual truth. It is abstract, and therefore empirically
untestable. It is not a _discovered_ conceptual truth, because it is
obviously true at first glance. In more complex cases, where analysis is
required, such truths are discovered. This is philosophy, Wade. If only
you weren't so scornful of it, you might find it quite interesting.
And some study of it would do wonders for the clarity of both your
thought and your exposition.
Meanwhile, the rest of your message is redundant.
<snip>
-- 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 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 09:09:29 BST