David Nyman wrote:
> In my various ramblings, I've tried to cut the whole Gordian knot of
> what can coherently be said to exist, and within this the whole debate
> on materialism, panpsychism, mind-body hard problems, causal closure
> of the physical, etc. by a simple expediency which then struck me as
> obviously true (how about that?).  To re-state:
> 1) Is there some logically prior requirement for anything to be said
> to exist?  Reflect: 'something existing' necessitates presence not
> absence.
> 2) What is the relation between presence and "I"' as I discover
> myself?  Reflect: "I" discover myself to be present.

What do you make of Hume's observation, "When I enter most intimately into what 
I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat 
or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I can never catch 
myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the 
perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, so 
long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist." ?


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to