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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
