On 12 Nov 2008, at 12:11, Kory Heath wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for >> granted. > > I agree. But from his perspective, the burden is on us to explain why > we can't take physical reality for granted. First, I have never stop to work on that and try to share the argument with people interested in the matter. Second, it happens that sometimes I think the burden his on him to tell us what he means by a physical universe. This is what I try to clarify too. > I've never seen the > arguments laid out quite clearly enough for my tastes. It is not a question of taste. It is a question of acknowledging use of logic and assumptions, and finding either hidden assumptions, or imprecise statements or invalid argument step(s). > (And I'll > admit, I've been too lazy to try it myself.) Which gives you perhaps a bit of time to study other's proposal. Of course if it is just a question of taste, I can' help you. Kory, I give you on plate a complete detailed, obviously a bit long and not "so" simple, argument which shows, or is supposed to show, that if mechanism is true there is no primary material universe, and you ask for a more tasty argument? I give you the blue pill, and you ask for ... what, marmelade, chocolate? (Sorry Kim Jones, I fall into simple sarcasm (again)) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
