May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and
Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly
than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but
they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical
to c
On 29-Jul-05, you wrote:
> May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and
> Colin:
>
> If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly
> than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but
> they cannot be discriminated as true and
Lee Corbin wrote:
Chris writes
> >>Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
>
> The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception
is
> indirect, and therefore the existence of a material cause for those
> perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's
r
Jesse writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> >Chris writes
> >
> > > >>Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
> > >
> > > The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show
> > > that sensory perception is
> > > indirect, and therefore the existence of a
> > > material cause for those perceptions is an
> > >
Tom wrote:
>> May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno
and >> Colin:>> >> If thought is laryngeal motion,
how should any one think more truly >> than the wind blows? All
movements of bodies are equally necessary, but >> they cannot be
discriminated as true and fals
Does everyone who is following the latest chapter of the book that
Hal is evidently writing agree that there is no necessary conflict
between it and more-or-less traditional realism? That is, I don't
find anything too outre here; it seems to be an interesting but
speculative theory about things mo
Lee Corbin wrote:
Jesse writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> >
> >Chris writes
> >
> > > >>Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
> > >
> > > The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show
> > > that sensory perception is
> > > indirect, and therefore the existence of a
> > > material cause for those p
Jesse writes
> > I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
> > because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
> > survival machine designed by evolution.
>
> Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
> reality is made up of nothing but observer-
8 matches
Mail list logo
