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
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
razor.
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
unjustified inference in
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 false. It seems
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
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 perceptions is an
7 matches
Mail list logo
