From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 20:44:55 GMT
----- Original Message -----
> > On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 01:11 , firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > That there is such a thing as a second tree ( for under your rubric,
> > > every tree has to have its own, nonrelational name).
> > Hmmm.
> > I don't see that I'm saying that, at all.
> > I demand not only a second tree, and then a third one, but, never a
> > first one twice.
> > Names?
> > When did they enter into it?
> > - Wade
> When we see three pine trees in a row, according to you, they all have
> to have individual names (just as all behaviours are individual, just so
> must all objects be). This makes the (sub) category 'pine' useless, just
> as it makes the category 'tree'. For your scheme to work. But it
Joe if I may,
Wade's scheme works in the way that each tree, despite the fact they
are all trees, named as pines, all grow as different individuals.
IMO, he is right, each person is not genetical unique, but also
memetical. The idea of a memetic isomorphism can take root here...
The same kind of scheme is applied in the search for wales.
Scientists take pictures of individuals to recognize them within
the species they are investigatin ' !
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 2.1.5 : Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 20:32:50 GMT