From: Steve (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Sat May 20 2000 - 04:04:23 MDT
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:31:29 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
Subject: Re: Can I kill the "semantics"?
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > >It's a fruit!
> > >
> > > Fruit grows on trees, tomatoes grow on vines.
>
> So I guess that makes a strawberry a vegetable too?
>I notice you guys left out things growing on bushes...
I have been following this thread about the abysmal failure of *semantic*
approaches.
Lingoistic attempts to answer such questions are always doomed to fail ....
analytic philosophy is to blame, with is dependence on made-up-names.
VISUAL Philosophy http://www.multi.co.uk/visual.htm is a new attempt to
overcome the shortcomings of conventionalist philosophy. Parallel bandwidth
is often more effective than serial auditory signalling!
My attack on lingoistic philosophy is on pages
http://www.multi.co.uk/edu.htm & http://www.multi.co.uk/academic.htm :
"When I use a word, "Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different
things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master -- that's
all." (Lewis Carroll)
Median Vision Theory, incidentally, is the *only* objective solution to
Chalmer's hard problem .... and therefore also the various Harvey Newstrom
sub-problems this list has been struggling with.
Hope this helps ....
www.steve-nichols.com
Editor Extropia.net
@@@@@@@@
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:43 MST