On 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, you said All comments welcome.You asked for it.First, there's a lot to read here, so I assumed you were presenting the
basic gist of your ideas in the first few paragraphs, and so I have afew comments about those paragraphs.I commend you
On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By 'perceivable' I don't necessarily mean 'perceived by humans', whatI mean is 'perceivable *in principle* (
i.e. by some mind, somewhere inthe universe).I admit my misunderstanding, and that you are talking about theunperceivable rather
OK, you said All comments welcome. You asked for it.
First, there's a lot to read here, so I assumed you were presenting the
basic gist of your ideas in the first few paragraphs, and so I have a
few comments about those paragraphs.
I commend you for trying to explain values as part of the
Marc seems unclear between unperceivable and unperceived, maybe clearing
that up would help.
If everything real needs some sort of perceivability, then everything real
would need not only to be interpretable and decodable, but also to be
verifiable, confirmable, corroborable, etc., by
Whether it's ignoring the unperceived or unperceivable, what I'm asking
is: Why do you limit metaphysics, at the outset, to being for the
purposes of understanding general intelligence? On the other hand,
how do we know what general intelligence is if all we have is our
human understanding?
5 matches
Mail list logo
