RE: virus: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:40:58 -0600

At 08:25 AM 9/27/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>Don't confuse the general, theoretical scenario, with the
>particular, practical one. Consideration of the existence
>of undetected objects is necessarily entirely theoretical.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be impractical or irrelevant.
For example, the modern theory of evolution depends on the
assumption that genes existed long before they were detected.

>Verification of actual existence is very, very far from
>orthogonal to knowledge.

> It is obviously the case that
>we can do all kinds of theoretical speculation. What

You seem to be implying that "all kinds of theoretical
speculation" are equally irrelevant. If so, I disagree.

>actually exists in the objective universe is rather more
>constrained. I say that, for us (which is who's
>discussing this, isn't it?), actual as opposed to
>theoretical objective existence is dependent upon

Is your own objective existence actual or theoretical?

>That's also why thoughts don't make the grade, of
>course (though the grade they do make is just as
>good in its own way!). Focus on particulars.

Isn't the existence of thoughts implied by evidence
in the same way as stars, people and genes?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus