Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA01100 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:30:07 GMT Message-ID: <003701c171e0$9c6d3420$859cbed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <004201c16ece$df984060$1adab3d1@teddace><002201c16fab$a1862b60$3f01bed4@default> <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Taxonomy and speciation Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:29:20 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip A.E. Jonkers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:06 AM
> Thus our tradition of taxonomy, though being well-designed for labeling
> fixed entities, falls somewhat short when trying to label dynamically
> evolving entities.
<< Do you think so !? Don 't you think we evolved memetically along with
the notion of labeling. That in a way the meaning of " dog " is extented
what !? That, if we speak about a dog that we still automatically imagine
what a dog is, but with the notion, in the back of our head, that there are
more than one species !
Only than during conversation we can specify the kind of dog we are
You mean in a way, that we can 't talk in specific terms about the dog
we own !? That we speak in general terms and not about " well, my pit-
bull; my pekinese; my sheepdog;..." , or not about " my Ford, my VW;
my BMW;... but about ' my car ' !?
But would it be a problem if species would only exist in our heads !?
After all, talking would specify the things we were dicussin '.
You are probably right, but I don 't see the problem if we now force
the notion of specification upon nature or not. It all comes, in the end,
down, to the ways we speak and interpretate.
If you call that an artifact, no problem.
But it is like you said, only in the realm of language if would make a
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 : Tue Nov 20 2001 - 16:35:56 GMT