--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > > It's just that you can't really settle the
> > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically
> > > possible.
> > 
> > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual 
> > possibility though.
> 
> The point is that you can't rule it out, which
> is quite startling if you think about it, given
> that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions
> about how it all works.
> 
pretty cool, huh?

Reply via email to