Re: Thoughts and Perceptions

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 16:08:12 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Subliminal advertising"

    Received: by id QAA23652 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:14:17 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:08:12 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2002 15:08:12.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB92C7D0:01C1E6EA]
    Precedence: bulk

    >Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
    >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:09:18 -0400
    >Hash: SHA1
    > > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 06:51:45 -0400
    > > From: Joachim Maier <>
    > >
    > > Now I read just a couple of weeks ago that 2 scientific teams not only
    > > slowed light down, but completely stopped light, and after a while
    > > it again.
    >If I remember correctly, (and it is likely I don't) the effect was a
    >change in the medium. And to add this to my point I was making about
    >the importance of detail, the issue here was that light travels at the
    >same speed in a vacuum. It changes speed in a different medium like
    >fiber-optics. I thought (and again, I may be wrong here) that the
    >experiment focused had the response of changing the medium itself
    >which caused the slow-down at stoppage of light... where reversing the
    >change cause the light to speed up again. Now, I may remember this
    >from reading an article that had a different viewpoint of the results
    >of the experiment, but again, I want to be careful because I'm unsure.
    > > They seemed to have changed a fact into a concept, and back into a fact.
    >Sounds like they changed the concept into a fact and back again. :-)
    What actually happened was fact at every stage of the experiment. The
    concept just guided the experiment. What was reported about the experiment
    was also fact to the extent that it accurately reflected what happened. The
    reported facts were memetic but the experiment itself was not. The word
    fact is being used here to talk about two different things: both the
    experiment and the report about the experiment. Both usagees are common and
    one does not preclude the other. What the word "fact" means is the same as
    with any other word: it depends on what it is being used to mean.

    Grant ;)

    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

    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 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 16:43:42 BST