Stephen writes
> Just one point while I have some time and mental clarity. Can a Realist
> accept that "a wholly independent world "out there" exists and existed
> before he did" and yet can admit that the particular properties of this
> "independent world" are not *definite* prior to the s
Hi Lee,
Just one point while I have some time and mental clarity. Can a Realist
accept that "a wholly independent world "out there" exists and existed
before he did" and yet can admit that the particular properties of this
"independent world" are not *definite* prior to the specification o
Chris writes
> Russell's (wasnt it Bernard Williams'?) criticism of the cogito is just to
> say that Descartes added non certainties to his certainty. The assumption of
> an 'I' to recieve the 'Thoughts'. Nevertheless, with regards to the hardcore
> 'realist', this isnt going to be much comfort
Bruno writes
> Lee Corbin a écrit :
>
> > Stephen writes
> >
> >> I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
> >> "objective processes" but the result of "objective processes".
> >
> > Of course, I will bow to whatever word usage is favored by most of
> > the people, or by
(The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
everything-list@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into
obsole
Brent said:
As Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago, the existence of a "self" who
"has" the experiences is an inference.
grrr! It doesnt matter how long ago anyone pointed anything out! Things do
not get truer or falser as they get older. They come in and out of vogue.
Russell's (wasnt it
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your answers. I follow you in passing on our points of
agreement (and erasing them).
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
Hi Godfrey,
I see we agree on many things. I comment only where we take distance
Le 15-août-05, à 06:02, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Stephen writes
I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
"objective processes" but the result of "objective processes".
Of course, I will bow to whatever word usage is favored by most of
the people, or by those who have
Ben, You are on the right track, but you missed a
fundamental principle and therefore are missing
advantageous use of it in mapping the question.
The issue comes out as an adjunct one: why is
standard logic insufficient -and- incomplete,
when applying it to observed
Hi Colin,
Sorry for being late,
Le 10-août-05, à 02:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi,
(via) Reality vs. Perception of Reality
In answer to Bruno’s recent comments on the old post:
* Thanks for helping me sort out my ‘Nagels’! I had them mixed up in
EndNote.
You are welcome. I did that co
Hi Godfrey,
I see we agree on many things. I comment only where we take distance.
Le 12-août-05, à 19:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
[GK]
Again I fully agree, though I am sure you are aware that "mentality"
and "identity" are among the most difficult problems that
science has tried to tack
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:21:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > This is a personal
> > copy and I would ask you not to redistribute it.
> >
>
>
> I will try to get some authorization. It will be hard for me not
> putting that paper in my webpage. Did you just scanned it. I would
> acknow
12 matches
Mail list logo
