John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
>
> > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
> > 3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and
> >you can agree that ALL OF THEM c
John,
Le 04-févr.-06, à 17:20, John M a écrit :
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding.
I don't think so. I test
Bruno,
Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say
my argument is not valid. Granted, much of what you write is
unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know
little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've
said so far:
(Norman
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
> loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species. There is a fair bit of evidence that something significa
5 matches
Mail list logo
