Re: Abstractism

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 09:32:19 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by id KAA22465 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:23:26 GMT
    Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:32:19 +0000
    Subject: Re: Abstractism
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <> <00af01c1a479$ac039ac0$aa86b2d1@teddace>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    In-Reply-To: <00af01c1a479$ac039ac0$aa86b2d1@teddace>
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    Precedence: bulk

    On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:51:40PM -0800, Dace wrote:
    > To be real a thing must exist whether or not we believe in it. An
    > abstraction, by definition, is a product of consciousness. It cannot exist
    > unless we imagine it-- precisely the opposite of the ontological criterion.

    That's wrong. Objective abstractions are explained here:

    Robin Faichney
    "One person's mess is another's complexity"
    inside information --

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 10:44:04 GMT