>>If a river creates a canyon you don't think the canyon is part
>>of the river's meaning?
>
>Hmmm, why should it be? Is there meaning without an observer? I would say
Because it makes more sense.
>no, even to the point of saying that attributing 'meaning' to natural
>processes is the bedrock fallacy of all theisms, yes, of all
>spirituo/religious perspectives. It certainly ain't no stone I want to be
>standing on.
I'm attributing causality to natural processes.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/