Le 01-août-05, à 03:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Hales) a écrit :
Reality vs perception of reality? I vote we work really hard on the
latter and drop all ascription in relation to the former. A
significant dose of humility indeed.
I don't think "objective reality" can be perceived (only
The discussion 'Brent vs Colin' is exciting. I am
still confused about the ">" and ">>" lines, I assume
the latter is Colin's saying while both the ">" and
the unmarked text (*** - *** below) comes from Brent.
My apologies, if I missed the boat. I want to reply to
issues anyway, not persons. Will
Colin Hales wrote:
So when I said that a rocket motor didn't fire last March because
corrosion products in the IRFNA pickup tube clogged the line, all
those people who thought this was an explanation were simply fooled.
No. I am being very specific about the words. When I say explanation I me
[Col replies---]
Tom, in your very eloquent fashion you have touched upon the essence
of my approach to the issue of a theory of everything.
I need to make sure that everyone knows that the "very eloquent" words
are not mine, but those of H.W.B. Joseph in the reference
I thought this article might be useful!
Stephen
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm
The Objectivity of Science
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism
by Rochus Boerner
The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between
open-mindedness an
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brent Meeker writes:
> On 31-Jul-05, you wrote:
>
> > [-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote
> > as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
> ...
> > Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed
> > e
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor 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
Le 29-juil.-05, à 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
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 discri
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 fals
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
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 c
> Hi Bruno,
>
>> Now look at science.
>>
>> We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
>> consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for
>> depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
>>
>> AND THEN
>>
>> we deny phenomenal consciousness
Hi Colin,
Le 28-juil.-05, à 02:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND T
Charles writes
> [col]
> I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers
> don;t type what I think. That's the relaity of it! :-)
Do you have a spell-checker?
> Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast because
> I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-)
Blast away!
Hi Bruno,
> Now look at science.
>
> We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
> consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
> of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
>
> AND THEN
>
> we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it u
Le 27-juil.-05, à 03:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny phenom
Le 26-juil.-05, à 03:12, Lee Corbin a écrit :
We all admit that it's easy to become confused. I myself
regularly do so every day. In fact, you can't even learn
anything until you first become confused.
I agree.
But there is *no* reason to become more confused than is
necessary.
Sure.
Colin writes
> Hi Lee, Beat around the 'bush', why don't you!
You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers.
Academically, it has become an almost completely worthless
cult. (I am *not* exaggerating one bit.)
> 'Reality', wha
18 matches
Mail list logo
