On 18 Feb, 00:13, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think my theory goes down the tube just 'cos Ian's no doubt > lovely young lady is talking in Morse Code.
Strooth! She's dashing about saying "Dot..." >I suspect the definition > of biology is what is not understood. There is no going back Francis, > not after the incident with the transgendered penguin! Biology has a > habit of developing things. > Absolutely. There's no doubt we don't have the full biological picture yet. And, of course, as things evolve, the picture keeps changing. Who would have thought, 50 years ago, that little strands of proteins (Prions) could replicate and evolve. But they can. And some 'scientists' still refuse to call them 'living'. To me, that's just arrogance. > On 17 Feb, 21:32, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oh well, back to the catwalk, I suppose ... :-) > > > Francis > > > On 17 Feb., 18:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 17 Feb, 16:15, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > True. But that never stopped Kate Moss. ;-) > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
