On 12 Nov 2008, at 12:11, Kory Heath wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for
> I agree. But from his perspective, the burden is on us to explain why
> we can't take physical reality for granted.
First, I have never stop to work on that and try to share the argument
with people interested in the matter.
Second, it happens that sometimes I think the burden his on him to
tell us what he means by a physical universe. This is what I try to
> I've never seen the
> arguments laid out quite clearly enough for my tastes.
It is not a question of taste. It is a question of acknowledging use
of logic and assumptions, and finding either hidden assumptions, or
imprecise statements or invalid argument step(s).
> (And I'll
> admit, I've been too lazy to try it myself.)
Which gives you perhaps a bit of time to study other's proposal. Of
course if it is just a question of taste, I can' help you.
Kory, I give you on plate a complete detailed, obviously a bit long
and not "so" simple, argument which shows, or is supposed to show,
that if mechanism is true there is no primary material universe, and
you ask for a more tasty argument?
I give you the blue pill, and you ask for ... what, marmelade,
(Sorry Kim Jones, I fall into simple sarcasm (again))
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