On 12/1/2011 4:22 AM, benjayk wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree,
please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit).
I agree wholheartedly!
That's why I don't like the reasoning. It is very narrow, and pretends to be
a proof (or at least a valid reasoning) for something that can't be
concluded through reason. It is very immodest to just disregard all
criticism of the argument (and to defend that with "you don't know what
you're talking about"), and then claim to be modest by virtue of not taken
the assumption for granted.
Taken the validity of reasoning for granted is not much more modest than
taking assumptions for granted, since really the reasoning itself depends on
many unstated assumption.
I think you are confusing reasoning and logical deduction. Logical deduction is narrow
and it never arrives at anything not implicit in its assumptions (although they may be
surprising). Reasoning is the general term for finding reasons to believe or act on one
proposition or another, and can be as broad as you want.
In this case, for example, only materialism or computational immaterialism
can be true, it is meaningful to say YES to something that is subjectively
not happening, etc...
I don't *know* the reasoning is false, but I can see plainly that is not
quite as objectively valid as Bruno wants to present it as.
Being able to say "I DUNNO!" is, in my opinion, one of the most important
steps in really being able to experience reality and ourselves in an
unbiased and clear manner.
As long as we cling to knowledge, we are looking at our ideas of reality and
ourselves, not at reality as it actually is.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at