An excellent statement of the classic phenomenological position, Craig. And, as you point out, there are - according to many canny thinkers - major problems in going beyond the phenomenon to the "thing in itself", whatever it may be.
Francis On 25 Mrz., 16:28, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > What I'm attempting to do is be precise in our language. When you > guys begin talking about quantum mechanics and what may underly all > that we experience, I believe you are mistaken in calling that > "reality." I believe that when we speak of reality we speak of that > which we perceive. Those common experiences are what we have labeled > reality. Now, there may be something else that gives rise to those > experiences, that produces the events that give rise to our > experience, but I wouldn't call that reality. We need to call > whatever that may be something else. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
