Bruno Marchal wrote:

> Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
> > I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the
> > numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our
> > observations.
> But why should we infer a substantial world? Substantial or primary or
> primitive matter is an incredible metaphysical extrapolation.

It is a modest metaphysical posit which can be used to explain
a variety of observed phenomena, ranging from Time and Change
to the observed absence of Harry Potter universes.

>  I still
> want to (re)study why Aristotle made that step, except as a tool for
> burying the mind-body problem.

As opposed to the mind-mathematics problem.

> Sade is very clear on the role of matter and why linking consciousness
> to it: to make people believed their act have few personal
> consequences. La Mettrie also begin the celbnrate "materialist"
> dissolution of the first person, including its responsibility feelings.
> The modern materialist have to be a first person eliminativist.
> I doubt less about consciousness and the number 317 than about *stuffy*
> strings or waves, which are not even assumed in physical theories,
> except in the background for separating conceptual issues from
> practice.

Stuffiness explains why the only one logical possibility is real.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to