On 6 July 2012 22:55, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

We have to be very careful about this "assumed from the onset" stuff! Yes,
> it is necessary to assume things even for the sake of discussion of ideas,
> but to assume that they are de facto primitive and/or a priori is often a
> fatal mistake.

Let me assure you, Stephen, that I make no assumptions or assertions as to
primitivity or a priori truth for these notions.  As I have said, I find
them useful and illuminating (as presumably did Hoyle) in connection with
certain conceptual problems of consciousness, particularly those relating
to personal identity and history.  It is also the case that, in discussing
these particular ideas with others, I've found that their particular
explicitness with respect to factors that are often tacit or even entirely
unrecognised has often been helpful in drawing out veiled aspects of
competing viewpoints.

I tend to agree that a comparison can be drawn with Leibnizian PEH, which I
suppose is rather unavoidable given the way the notion is formulated.  With
respect to the substrate or "real system" with which Hoyle's pigeon holes
are assumed to be associated "*h**ypotheses non fingo"; *the heuristic is
more or less neutral on this issue, which can be construed both as a
weakness or a strength, depending on one's purposes.


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