--part1_2c1021c2.248eb3c5_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-06-08 02:04:53 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we are touching on the BIG PROBLEM that will concern the
ethicisists
of the 21th century and
You have jsut asked: There would be more unfamiliar environments, so why
don't I find myself in an unfamiliar environment? Err... because you're
used to it.
In fact, we are less likely to find ourselves in regions where raindrops are
like elephants because they would be less conducive to life. I
A 11:16 +0100 9/06/99, Marchal a écrit:
WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
---
Chris Maloney wrote:
The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are
The original message was received at Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
from mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Transcript of session follows -
554 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mailbox full, Please try later.
Is anyone familiar with this, at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ ?
It's a collaborative effort to develop and organize
philosophical theories in a kind of organic, constantly
improving structure.
While reading the archives of this list, I've been blown
away by how much good material there is in there
Gilles Henri wrote
I suspect that the comp hypothesis would in fact favour the solution where
there is actually no external world at all, but only your (for me, my!)
mind, because it is much shorter to describe ONLY a brain state than the
whole Universe surrounding it, although perfectly
6 matches
Mail list logo
