Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA20987 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:05:21 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:59:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAOEIPCOAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <986CD1DC-523D-11D6-9556-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 01:56 , Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> Each of these deifintions posits an observer or a 'stator.' So, I think
> Grant's point is well taken, and stand corrected. I think Wade is
> using the
> term to refer to the "auctual existence" of the thing, regardless of
> it is observed or stated.
Man is the measure of all things.
He ain't the maker of what's being measured. (Unless he is, and,
admittedly, in this little and local corner of the universe, he makes
quite a bit.)
And what's being measured is a 'fact'.
The type of measurement is not. It might even be a concept.
Yes, gravity is a fact without anyone being about to measure it.
Grant will fall off that bridge without needing any concept of falling,
or bridge, or gravity.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 21:22:06 BST