On 17 Feb., 14:49, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 Feb, 18:55, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >
> Perhaps it is artificial. I certainly had nothing to do with > constructing either language or matter. So, I can only surmise these > to be natural. Whether they are analogous, well, if so, then that > would, too, be natural; if they (language and matter) are, in fact, > artificial, then any semblence between them would be as artificial as > the things themselves. Ah, but Pat, this is where you miss my point. I wasn't talking about language or matter, rather the categories we use to analyse them; to wit, our conventional grammatic categorisations, or even the periodic table of elements. These are models, and - as I'm sure you will agree (even while embarked on your search for the Universal Theory of Everything) - we can use many different models to achieve insights into that which we perceive. It is, however, always risky to push models too far - above all, to forget that models are just that, models. Francis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
