What are memes? Why don't you read an excellent book on memes, the "Virus
of the Mind" first. You are replacing the word "definition" with the word
"meme". Of course any information can be called a meme, but it does not
change the fact that Richard Brodie (my favourite author) lives in Seattle.
It's a fact. And, yes, a definition of a fact can be called a meme. It
does not change the fact.
>Reality has
>no "truth" to it, it just is. Truth is a property of a statement. You
>cannot make any statement about reality without approximating reality,
It is obvious and "discussing it seems fairly pointless" (as my favourite
author says).
>because REAL reality is too big and complex and ever-changing to describe.
[Unless you are on Level-21 and you are able to perceive the REAL reality
through memes which you put in your head at will (when you come to Vancouver
I'll teach you how). :-)]
>This is why Whitehead points out that all "truths" are really half-truths.
In other words it's only half truth that you live in Seattle (because the
REAL reality is too big) . Where is the other half?
REAL reality, eh? You *were* really talking half-truths here:
>>>> 4. Which 'reality' are you talking about?
>>>Is there more than one?
>> Yes, people are always confusing subjective reality with objective reality.
>I haven't noticed anyone terribly confused about that here.
Nobody confused? Somehow it reminds me of talking about people under
Communism of being "equal" but some are "more equal than others". One
reality, but of course there is also the "REAL reality" (which is a sphere,
which only some people from Seattle and Whitehead are able to understand).
>The problem I have with your counterexample is essentially what Eva pointed
>out, that wrapped up in the distinction-meme "objective reality" would seem
>to be the notion of self-consistency, so that hypothesizing the
>inconsistency of objective reality is nonsensical. As Prof. Tim suggests,
>you simply have faith that there is an underlying consistent physical
>reality. This can never be proved, but it sure feels obvious. And
>discussing it seems fairly pointless.
What is worth discussing, Richard?
Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your motives when you wrote to David:
<<======
I don't know when you will realize that your position is
self-contradictory, David. There is no such thing as a point, as a
Cartesian plane, as polar coordinates. These are all abstractions,
approximations, lies-to-children.
Richard
who almost moved to Norway to teach Cartesian geometry, but fortunately
realized just in time that it would be putting Descartes before the Norse.
=======>>
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159