2009/7/30 1Z :
> Unless an argument is put forward for Platonism being
> preferable to materialism, it doesn't get off the ground.
But surely it's already up in the air?
David
>
>
>
> On 28 July, 00:34, David Nyman wrote:
>
>> AFAICS, until these 'under-the-carpet' issues are squarely faced,
2009/7/30 1Z :
> Cart before the horse:
> Why should anyone believe in an ontological gap that isn't backed by
> an explanatory gap?
Why indeed?
> The mere existence of the mental implies nothing whatsoever
> about any dualism any more than the simultaneous existence
> of cabbages and kings.
W
On 28 July, 01:30, David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/7/27 Brent Meeker :
>
> >>> So the brain (i.e. what the eye can see) can't be the mind; but the
> >>> intuition remains that mind and brain might be correlated by some
> >>> inclusive conception that would constitute our ontology: Kant's great
> >>>
On 28 July, 00:34, David Nyman wrote:
> AFAICS, until these 'under-the-carpet' issues are squarely faced, the
> customary waving away of the brain-mind relation as a simplistic
> functional identity remains pure materialist prejudice, and on the
> basis of the above, flatly erroneous. To say t
On 27 July, 18:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 27 Jul 2009, at 14:57, David Nyman wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an
> >> "ontological" physical universal, it is impossible to recover the
> >> first person
2009/7/30 Rex Allen :
> It seems to me that the primary meaning of "to exist" is "to be conscious".
>
> But what causes conscious experience? Well, I'm beginning to think
> that nothing causes it. Our conscious experience is fundamental,
> uncaused, and irreducible.
>
> Why do we think that our c
2009/7/30 1Z :
> [[sound of footsteps]]]
>
> "Please allow me to introduce myself ..."
Avaunt, ye blood-sucking fiend!
Van Helsing (retd.)
>
>
>
> On 27 July, 14:17, David Nyman wrote:
>> On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> > >> Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR
On 27 July, 14:17, David Nyman wrote:
> On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> > >> Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what "RITSIAR" means? I
> > >> cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it.
>
> On a (slightly) more serious note, to the best of my recollec
Hi John, and the other.
John motivates me to explain what is a function, "for a mathematician".
On 30 Jul 2009, at 17:53, John Mikes wrote:
> Hi, Bruno,
> let me skip the technical part
OK. But I remind you this current thread *is* technical.
> and jump on the following text.
> F u n c t i
Okay, I've reworked my views a bit based on the discussion thus far.
It seems to me that the primary meaning of "to exist" is "to be conscious".
But what causes conscious experience? Well, I'm beginning to think
that nothing causes it. Our conscious experience is fundamental,
uncaused, and irred
2009/7/30 John Mikes :
Hi John
Well, I'm equally moved that you have the motivation and interest to
read what I write! I'm uncomfortably aware that I often dump quite a
lump of verbiage at once, so do let me know whenever anything is
obscure. There's a narrow path between saying too much and to
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part and jump on the following text.
*F u n c t i o n* as I believe is - for you - the y = f(x) *form*. For me:
the *activity -* shown when plotting on a coordinate system the f(x) values
of the Y-s to the values on the x-axle resulting in a relation (curve). A
Hi, David,
I am deeply moved that you spent so close a look at my questions - taking
them seriously enough to reply in length and kind. I will re-re-reread your
posts (more than just to me) and try to arrive at some readable response in
3 - 30 days if I can.
I don't promise to oppose, maybe in the
On 30 Jul 2009, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal :
>
>> Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
>> blasphemous.
>
> Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
If comp is true, nature does it eventually. But it can take a long time.
This raises a
2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal :
> Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
> blasphemous.
Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
> I should have use
> "third party", but my hands did not cooperate; when I type, they are
> too quick for my brain to follow.
So when I ask y
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 29 July, 17:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Gosh, David, you are a champion for the difficult questions.
>
> Merci maitre, but I really only meant this rhetorically!
Oh! I was a bit rhetorical myself.
> On behalf of
> the One
Here you are
On 28 Jul 2009, at 21:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:38, David Nyman wrote:
> ...
>>> be conceived for this purpose to
>>> be 'sequentially resolving' each 'OM-programme-step'? Indeed my
>>> understanding is that this dovetailed sequentiality is act
17 matches
Mail list logo
