On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> You can argue that Nature has already bet on comp, when building brains, > and in that sense we use it implicitly, > You bet you can argue that! > but here comp is assumed. > It's assumed to be true every day of our lives by everybody everywhere, except when they are arguing philosophy on the internet. But the instant they sign off they go right back to assuming it just like everybody else, the have to because nobody could function if they thought they were the only conscious being in the universe. > even if the argument of the non-comp people are rarely rational, this > does not mean that rational argument for non-comp cannot be given. > I've never heard a rational argument for non-comp and I've been debating this issue for decades. So be the first, make me a believer, I have no loyalty toward any theory and will change sides at the drop of a logical hat. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
