peterdjones wrote:
> 
> Georges Quenot wrote:
>> peterdjones wrote:
>>> [...] What we can be sure of is that
>>> 1) we exist
>>> 2) we are conscious
>>> 3) there is some sort of external world
>>> 4) there is some phenomenon of time.
>> *You* are sure of that and of what it might mean. Please do
>> not decide for others.
> 
> Is it possible for me to have a discussion with you ?

Good question. After having tried I am not so sure.

> If the answer is "yes", you are conceding:
> 
> 1) you and I exist
> 2) you and I are conscious
> 3) you are external to me and vice-versa

All of these statements can be understood in many ways
depending upon the context and the person. *I do not*
consider them *universally* true.

> That only leaves (4), but I suppose all discussions take some time.

In the context of this discussion, 1) through 4) are
left, and especially 3).

>>> These are all quite problematical for Mathematical Monism;
>> As *you* believe and understand them, certainly. *I* do not
>> see any problem for mathematical monism (I do not need the
>> upper cases) to make sense.
> 
> So you say. As things stand, I have to take your word,

Thanks. We at least accomplished this.

> since you have not offered any explanation.

I am afraid I can't. I tried hard but you appeared to
reject all grounds on which I could have built one.
That's your freedom but I don't see what more I can do.
Finally I pointed that we did not share enough grounds
but even this did not seem to make it.

>>> [...] Arguments should start with what you can be sure of.
>> What "we" can be sure of (as well as what it might mean) can
>> be very different from my viewpoint and from yours.
> 
> Viewpoints can differ without being equally valid.

Note that you need a viewpoint to decide that a viewpoint
is more valid than another.

> If you cannot account for the existence of such a thing as
> a discussion *in* a discussion,

I think I can and I do.

> you are in trouble.

I don't think so. Even if it turns out that we cannot
discuss one with each other, I feel nothing wrong with
that. That's just life.

>> In order to have a chance to make the point, arguments that
>> *you* address to *me* should start wtih what *I* can be sure
>> of and not with what *you* can be sure of. And vice versa
>> indeed.
>>
>> What I can be sure of is probably "weaker" than what you can
>> be sure of. It is likely to be quite different too. That must
>> be why it can be compatible with more (or different) ideas.

I feel that we are drifting off topic...

Georges.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to