Bruno,
This is a stupid question but I'm hoping it contains the kernel of
an idea. Since logic is based on a few common definitions, do you really need
all these complicated steps and permutations to prove a theory? Why can't you
show us what you mean in a handful of clear, simple, lo
On 08 Dec 2009, at 09:50, Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>> So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
>>> physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
>>
>> What defines "upwards" and "downwards". Why wou
Rex Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>>> So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
>>> physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
>>>
>> What defines "upwards" and "downwards". Why would "downwar
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Rex Allen wrote:
>>So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
>>physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
>
> What defines "upwards" and "downwards". Why would "downwards"
> causation make any difference?
Upwards f
4 matches
Mail list logo
