Cogito ergo sum
wsnyder at sciti.com
Thu Jun 1 15:15:06 EST 2000
To both Peter and Robert: clearly, I am, at least partially, mistaken about
the example which I chose (robots - but is a golem a robot?- and I should
have remembered the Aristotle reference), but I stand by my fundamental
point. Certain ideas cannot arise without the appropriate historical
developments. Try the example of "sub-atomic particle" or "light-year", for
example. My point was that unspeakablity to historical epoch A, does not
imply unintelligibility; it may just mean that people in that historical
epoch know nothing about it. :)
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3935C0C7.449A at worldnet.att.net...
> Bill Snyder wrote:
> > "Wim Van Nieuwenhoven" <wivani at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:H9Q0Oc8jey61nE3mh+1UCgBM1tlC at 4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 30 May 2000 09:40:38 -0700, "Bill Snyder" <wsnyder at sciti.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >But who knows what forms a Latin speaker in
> > > >ancient Italy would have used to communicate some of those concepts -
> > given
> > > >that they could have possessed them.
> > >
> > > Unintelligible and therefor unspeakable?
> > >
> > No! Utterly unknown, therefore no occasion to speak about them. You
> > talk about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge (and saying
> > is NOT talking about them but merely referring to them as possible
> > of knowledge, somewhere, someday). But as we know today robots are
> > intelligible and can easily be spoken about. They were equally
> > in 200BC, and could have easily been spoken of, IF the idea had ever
> > occurred to anyone! But until certain technological developments had
> > placed, the idea itself did not arise.
> There were golems in a culture not technologically all that different
> from Rome; what about Cadmus's army, sprung from the sowing of dragons'
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim at worldnet.att.net
More information about the Neur-sci