What you're referring to, is another problem, namely the other's mind. how
we know that another human is experiencing what we do? We actually assume
that to be true, that everyone has consciousness.
But it doesn't justify the other mistake. This does not mean you can deny
your possible(!)
On Jun 20, 3:35 am, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Methinks you 'get it'. You are far more eloquent than I am, but we talk of
the same thing..
Thank you Colin. 'Eloquence' or 'gibberish'? Hmm...but let us
proceed...
where I identify ??? as a necessary primitive and comment that
On Jun 20, 8:56 am, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.
Once more here you've interpreted the situation from a third person point of
view. I don't care what YOU can conclude from MY behavior.
On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don' think we can be *personally* mistaken about our own
consciousness even if we can be mistaken about anything that
consciousness could be about.
I agree with this, but I would prefer to stop using the term
down a wys..
===
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:47:19PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
RUSSEL
All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth is
5 matches
Mail list logo
