> Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> says this:
> >OK, then: an "original" is that instance of a thing which existed at the
> >point in time at which the process of "copying" commenced, where "copying"
> >is understood as the process of creating another instance of a thing that
> >shares as many properties with the existing thing as physically possible.
> I know why you've been hesitating and maybe I'm a little sadistic for pushing
> so hard but I want to see if you can really say with a straight face that the only
> true original is that one celled zygote.
The important part of my definition is that the term "original" can only
have meaning with respect to a specific act of copying. That zygote is
the original with respect to the first copy you make--if you wish to make
some connection between that and all the other originals for other acts of
copying, that requires that you define such a relationship beforehand--
you must already presume some continuity or some grouping relation among
those acts of copying before you can ask which is original with respect
to the whole group. How you define the group, and how you choose to
define "original" with respect to that group is up to you. I still don't
see any question here about reality that we don't all agree about.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:25 MDT