Date: Thu 29 May 2003 - 09:19:45 GMT
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 09:33 PM, Joe wrote:
> > bricks can be divided into red and non-red bricks
> Alas, not the ones outside in the sidewalk- they are all red paving
> bricks, in use throughout Cambridge.
> My point, which you've avoided, is that nothing about dividing any
> elements of anything into subsets of itselves has any pertinence to
> how those things got there in the first place.
> Thus, divide thoughts into as many pieces as you like, because you so
> obviously enjoy doing that- at no time have you, in your division,
> made any analysis about the thoughts themselves.
Then the non-red bricks in that sidewalk comprise an empty set, but a set nonetheless. And I have indeed considered the thoughts themselves, enough to state that raw perceptions are incommunicable, but verbal descriptions of them do not share this limitation. Neither set
(communicable or incommunicable) is empty in this case. But, furthermore than that, logic and set theory are reduceable to each other. Think about Venn Diagrams. All A is B, No A is B, some is, some isn't, and so on. You shred the foundations of your own ability to contend something not something else when you reject your primordial tool.
> - Wade
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 29 May 2003 - 09:26:09 GMT