[OT] natural abtraction (was Re: Hurd [was:M$ licenses Unix])
On Friday 23 May 2003 19:38, Richard Hector wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 09:12:53AM -0400, Mike M wrote:
> > In the introduction the term "natural abstraction" was used. It started
> > the wheels turning in my head and I could read no further. Are there
> > abstractions in nature? I thought nature was the uncontrived - the
> > unabstract.
> I think so - do you think about a bunch of atoms, a bunch of airwaves, a
> collection of knowledge? Or do you think of a person, incorporating the
> sound of their voice etc etc? That seems like a natural abstraction to me.
Thinking is abstraction. It is our nature to think. Natural abstraction in
this sense is redundant. Unnatural abstractions cannot exist. Maybe there
is some special meaning of "natural" in the field of ASM?
> The conversation leading up to that had me a bit lost, so I'm not sure if
> this is relevant :-)
It was fun nevertheless.