Re: Can I kill the "semantics"?

From: Steve (
Date: Sat May 20 2000 - 04:04:23 MDT

Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:31:29 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject: Re: Can I kill the "semantics"?

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> > > >It's a fruit!
> > >
> > > Fruit grows on trees, tomatoes grow on vines.
> So I guess that makes a strawberry a vegetable too?

>I notice you guys left out things growing on bushes...

I have been following this thread about the abysmal failure of *semantic*
Lingoistic attempts to answer such questions are always doomed to fail ....
analytic philosophy is to blame, with is dependence on made-up-names.

VISUAL Philosophy is a new attempt to
overcome the shortcomings of conventionalist philosophy. Parallel bandwidth
is often more effective than serial auditory signalling!

My attack on lingoistic philosophy is on pages & :

"When I use a word, "Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master -- that's
all." (Lewis Carroll)

Median Vision Theory, incidentally, is the *only* objective solution to
Chalmer's hard problem .... and therefore also the various Harvey Newstrom
sub-problems this list has been struggling with.

Hope this helps ....

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:26 MDT