On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote:
> ...
> > One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that part
> > of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can
> > observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths.
> I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does  
> self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can  
> recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person  
> communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that  
> they can make the experience of it (for example through prays,  
> reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents,  
> drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)?
> Bruno
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

If the basis of everything is a Person, then this can make my above
statement make sense.  Can we really have a scientific understanding
of a person?  This would by definition be one person having a
scientific understanding of their relationship to another person.
Actually, I think that this is a downfall of many relationships among
persons.  The scientific understanding requires repeatability.  The
goal of modern science (which is what we mean by science) is control,
which requires repeatability.  Love (the mysterious force of good
relationship between persons) does not "work" within a scientific


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 

Reply via email to