From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Mon Jan 25 1999 - 17:38:08 MST
At 09:01 AM 1/25/99 -0700, Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
>Ian sez:
>>The "no group entity" proposition is a fallacy
>
>Only if "entity" is defined so broadly as to lose most of its
>discriminatory value.
IAN: I defined "collective entity" as
"the ordering of individuals in a system."
Are you saying that we cannot discriminate
the ordering of entities in a given system?
>>inherent to atomism that overlooks or denies outright
>>the existence of holistic connections and structures.
>
>Nobody's defending "atomism" here. No one here has denied the existence of
>holistic connections and structures.
IAN: Really?! Wasn't it you that said "a collection
of objects can't itself be a physical object," and
then modified that by saying "Perhaps I should've
written 'mere collection of objects'." That sounds
like a very radical denial of holistic structures.
**************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
" A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."
Max Plank - Nobel physicist
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:55 MST