Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA02049 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:38:14 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Philip A.E. Jonkers" <email@example.com> Organization: UC Berkeley To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Taxonomy and speciation Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:37:34 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <004201c16ece$df984060$1adab3d1@teddace> <email@example.com> <003701c171e0$9c6d3420$859cbed4@default> In-Reply-To: <003701c171e0$9c6d3420$859cbed4@default> Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tuesday 20 November 2001 08:29 am, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip A.E. Jonkers <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:06 AM
> Hi Philip,
> You wrote,
> > 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
> talking about.
> 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 '.
Of course you can specify that your dog is a terrier or a pekinees or what
have you. It's part of the specifying power of a name. All I am trying to get
through is that speciation as a continuous process does not occur except
perhaps in the head of whoever thinks of it. Names of species, having all the
ergonomical benefits, were invented by humans.
> 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
Nature evolves regardless whether we name its organisms or not. Speciation
is no intrinsic part of nature, it's part of our taxonomous heritage our
eagerness to tag names (initiated against a religious setting).
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 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 03:44:41 GMT