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." ? Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
