From: ed@somewhere.in.the.uk   
      
   Richmond wrote:   
   > Ed Cryer  writes:   
   >   
   >> Richmond wrote:   
   >>> Ed Cryer  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Richmond wrote:   
   >>>>> If something is fundamental, then it ought to be understood by   
   >>>>> everyone (present).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> How so? There appears to be no logical or linguistic connection   
   >>>> between "fundamental" and "understood by everyone (present)".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ed Because if it is not understood by everyone it is too complicated   
   >>> to be fundamental.   
   >>   
   >> That's very unphilosophical.  The best I can make of it is that you're   
   >> using "fundamental" where I'd use "axiomatic".   
   >>   
   >> Language isn't like Euclidean geometry, which is founded on a few   
   >> postulates from which everything follows inevitably.  Language isn't   
   >> an axiom system.  Look up "Hume's Fork".   
   >>   
   >> Ed   
   >   
   > No, I am using the right word. Here is the context:   
   >   
   > https://www.sci.news/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fu   
   damental-quality-universe-07291.html   
   >   
   > How can consciousness be a fundamental quality of the universe, when   
   > people don't even know what it means exactly?   
      
   Do people understand "emergent" property?   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)