>> To say that the supernatural exists only in minds, myths, and memes,
>>means
>> that the supernatural doesn't really exist, but only the concept or
>> meme-construct of it exists.
>Not so. You have defined "exists" narrowly so that it excludes
>meta-phenomena such as minds and memes. You seem to teeter on the edge
>between the Platonic view of existence, where only concepts exist, and the
>(shudder) Objectivist view that only the tangible has a "true" or "valid"
>existence.
Existence includes the tangible or physical, the mental (minds), the
intangible world of memes, and there could be many other planes of
existence possible. So, I guess it is correct to say that the supernatural
exists in minds, myths, and memes.
But, is the distinction clear to people who haven't made a distinction
between the physical, mental, and/or memetic?
>Do Romeo and Juliet exist? I dare say they have made a greater impact a
>greater number of people than either you or I ever will.
They've had a 400 year head start.
>Which makes me wonder. If we say that the supernatural exists only in
>myths, minds and memes, are we not at the same time recognizing that this
>"supernatural" is an emergant property generated from the natural world?
>Or purhaps, from the Three M's themselves?
It's a Godelian paradox--it is an emergent property but not supernatural,
but then again it is "supernatural".
>If we were to use chemical bonding as our criteria for existence, would a
>gene, per se, exist?
Genes are dependent on there being chemical bonding since their existence
is not just derived from their property of replicating, but is affected by
chemical makeup.
--David R.