Le 19-oct.-06, à 13:58, 1Z a écrit :
> > > David Nyman wrote: >> 1Z wrote: >> >>> This *is* ecumenicism. The buck stops here. What higher >>> court of appeal is there , than consideration of the nature of >>> EVERYTHING? >> >> Touché! >> >>> If Bruno isn't reifying numbers, he's in trouble. >> >> And if the materialist isn't reifying the observables, he's right in >> there with him. > > Obviously the materialist is reifying matter. > But then we can *see* material things. You are lucky. I see *appearance* of matter, but I don't see existing primary matter. The existence of this one has to be postulated. But I have already criticize your "non-definition" of primary matter. I find that concept far more nebulous than consciousness for example, which certainly exists as a receptacle of the appearance. I don't doubt about those appearance. > Reification pers e is not the problem; the problem > is reifying what is invisible/uninteractive. I agree. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
