Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA25212 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:51:15 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: RE: Thoughts and Perceptions Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:45:33 -0700 Message-ID: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBKEJLELAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <BA49DF38-533C-11D6-90FB-003065B4D1F0@wehi.edu.au> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
It's humbling, John, to realize that all these brilliant thoughts we think
we're inventing have been thought many times before. Reminds me of reading
Aristophanes in high school and realizing that Monty Python wasn't as
original as I thought...
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
Of John Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts and Perceptions
On Friday, April 19, 2002, at 08:46 AM, Dace wrote:
> Hi Wade,
> You're absolutely justified in standing up for the distinction between
> concept and reality. Even if Bill S. is right that the concept of
> gravity will one day be dismissed by physics, this doesn't change the
> fact that our current concept refers to something real. But factuality i
> sn't identical to actuality. A fact is a concept that happens to be true,
> at least in the context of our general conceptual schema, which is
> always subject to revision.
There is a classical error that I have called the Abstraction Fallacy
before - I found a beautiful quote in Boethius (5thC):
"It is clear... that this happened to him [Epicurus], and to
others, because they thought, through inexperience in logical
argument, that everything they comprehended in reasoning
occurred also in things themselves. " [_Second
Commentary of Porphyry's Isagoge_, Bk I, sect 2]
> Looks like the same semantic blind-spot that tripped you up last summer
> on "belief."
> On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 11:08 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
> > What actually happened was fact at every stage of the experiment. The
> > concept just guided the experiment.
> You betcha.
> > What the word "fact" means is the same as with any other word: it
> > depends on what it is being used to mean.
> "Yes, that is what the _word_ for fact does," said the White Knight.
> - - Wade
-- John S Wilkins Head, Communication Services The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Parkville, Victoria, Australia
===================== 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 19 2002 - 05:08:03 BST