John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about the same nature (world) and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about the same nature (world) and
you can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
John,
Le 04-févr.-06, à 17:20, John M a écrit :
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding.
I don't think so. I test
Bruno,
Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say
my argument is not valid. Granted,much of what you write is
unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know
little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've
said so far:
(Norman ONE)
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species. There is a fair bit of evidence that something
5 matches
Mail list logo
