> Prof. Tim wrote:
>
> >> 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 not nature, Metamucil."
Eva,
who, like Metamucil, is all-natural.