Bruce C. Baker wrote:
> "David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1171843561.587419.79320_at_s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Feb 18, 12:48 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 17, 4:39 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"It seems to be the closest fit to how the mind works"
>>>
>>>>Gah....Unghhh....<gnashing of teeth/>
>>>
>>>I know what you mean.
>>>
>>>The phrase "how the mind works" is high on my list
>>>of signals that sets off the crank-o-meter. It's ideal
>>>for the crank because it sounds super-smart and
>>>it doesn't mean a goddamn thing.
>>>
>>>Marshall
>>
>>All I'm saying is that nouns are fundamental to how we think. The
>>claim that "entities are illusionary" is high on my list of signals
>>that sets off the crank-o-meter.
One doesn't need entities to have nouns. Values are our nouns and
relations are the sentences (predicates) we say about them.
> Entities may not be an illusion, but they are a slipperier subject than you
> might think:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Data-Reality-William-Kent/dp/1585009709/sr=1-1/qid=1171843838/ref=sr_1_1/002-5275250-5436037?ie=UTF8&s=books
Received on Sun Feb 18 2007 - 18:48:41 CST
