Le 27-déc.-06, à 20:11, Jef Allbright a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But our main criterion for what to believe should be
what is true, right?
I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology
is my misunderstanding, his
Brent Meeker writes:
It's a strange quality of delusions that psychotic people are even more
certain of their truth than non-deluded people are certain of things
which have reasonable empirical evidence in their favour.
Yet this seems understandable. The psychotic person is believing
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person will give
you his reasons for his belief:
[...]
This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite
evidence in support
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
...
This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious
convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a
point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence
is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief.
On 12/28/06, Johnathan Corgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person
will give
you his reasons for his belief:
[...]
This is very similar to the arguments of people with
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct and
immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can
you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of Descartes diagonal argument: it is the
fixed point of doubt. If we
Jef Allbright wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of
consciousness, on what basis can
you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of Descartes diagonal argument: it is the
fixed
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jef Allbright wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct
and immediate sense of consciousness, on what
basis can you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of Descartes diagonal
Jef Allbright wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jef Allbright wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense
of consciousness, on what
basis can you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of
Brent Meeker writes:
This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious
convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a
point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence
is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief.
10 matches
Mail list logo
