Brent,
Thanks for keeping the phun in philosophy.
marty
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:58 PM
Subject:
Dear Rex,
I went through that long back-and-forth with Brent (not sure which
meaning whom)
and recalled Brono's we don't 'know': we assume (as in scinece). I also
recalled my poor opinion about statistical/probabilistical judgements
(because they depend on the limits of counting and sequence of
On 06 May 2010, at 04:24, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com
wrote:
We haven't changed the relative number of Rexs and not-Rexs, we've
just labeled them with an extra property and then rearranged them
according to that additional property. They
Ha! Indeed, these nesting levels do get fairly obscure.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Rex,
I tried to paraphrase your next to last par. of this post.
It was:
As if we could do otherwise. If we assume physicalism, then our
constituent particles
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 May 2010, at 04:24, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
We haven't changed the relative number of Rexs and not-Rexs, we've
just labeled them with an extra
On 06 May 2010, at 04:13, Rex Allen wrote:
What is belief except another aspect of conscious experience?
OK.
Well. I am trying to fit everything that I know into a single
consistent, coherent framework.
Me too.
Maybe belief is all that exists? Fundamental and uncaused...
Rex,
you may have made a typo, but in my thinking it does not make a difference:
when I translate the 'physicalist' surety into hypothetical (agnostic,
assumed) possibilities it leads to the same uncertainty if translated from
YES or from NO.
My main point is the *given the universe's initial
7 matches
Mail list logo
