Brent Meeker wrote:

> That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
> pointed out was an unsupported inference.  The most that could be said is,
> "There's thinking."  If your ontology includes processes like "thinking"
> then I suppose it does precede your empistemology.  But you can't kick
> thinking and if you could it wouldn't kick back - unless the ESPers are
> right. ;-)

I don't want my ontology to precede my epistemology. I think
both claims are silly.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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