g would accept my paraphrase of his argument.
All the best.
> From: stath...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:01:35 +1000
> Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> On 22 August 2013 13:20, chris peck wrote:
> > Hi
other experience, could be an accidental co-phenomena; a kind of
side show that is a distracting superficial phenomena of no bearing or
consequence to the underlying preordained script is not supported by the
evidence that nature places a lot of energy and attention on developing and
evolving precisely t
corruption in politics (US elections 2000) is good in hind sight because it led
to democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
or one more up Saibal's street:
In hind sight the end of the Raj was a bad thing because it led to the
partition of India and Pakistan, wars over Kashmir and nuclear friction.
Hi Roger
Just persevere. It took ages before he listened to me regarding black holes.
All the best.
> From: rclo...@verizon.net
> To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of
> logic
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 20
Hi Saibal
When you say something is "good" you have some concept of morality in mind
whether you like it or not. Otherwise comments like 'this is good' or 'that is
good' are meaningless gibberish. In your case it is very obviously
consequentialism you have in mind because you are attempting to
rational arguments.
>
> John is a good example, he doesn't read past the first sentence when I
> wrote hat 9/11 was a good thing to have happend, because he has
> programmed a concept of "morality" in his brain to create a mental
> block in such a case. W
concept doesn't apply.
>
> Look there may well be something useful in philosophy, like what you
> write about preventing flawed reasoning. But philosophy has been pretty
> bad at preventing ill defined baggage being inntroduced and made part
> of arguments. This is why phys
Hi Chris
>> if in the end it is an infinitely regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic
>> illusion – why the elaborate and evolutionarily expensive (multiple levels
>> of adaption) masquerade ball in which we all participate?
As far as I can tell there is no cosmic illusion of free will. I'm my opi
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here
'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external
stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which
is to say it is not activity that is bound to some e
13 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
> The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they uncovered
> is
> explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain activity. More
> importantly, by spontaneous they just mean brain activity that has not been
&g
On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt
Hi Chris
>> I
also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”.
But if I do not have “free will” evolution has seen fit to evolve
a very expensive – in evolutionary terms – illusion of “free
will... To argue that “free will”, “self-awareness
thing-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of chris peck
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:30 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turin
Hi Alberto
First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not only
cosmology and meteorology but also in human sciences it is almost impossible to
perform a controlled experiments. Some economy laws, not to tell in other old
discipliones like moral sciences and so on, many law
Hi John
>>There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl
>>Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and
>>described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom.
In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book "Unended Quest:
Hi John
>> Nearly a century ago J.B.S. Haldane was confronted with a bonehead who said
>> he thought Evolution was not a scientific theory because he was unable to
>> provide a hypothetical way it could be disproved. In response Haldane
>> thundered "RABBITS IN THE PRECAMBRIAN !".
It wasn'
should
all learn from the fine example you set.
All the best.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:18:56 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Did you use to post as Ma
Hi PGC
It seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. Unsuprising given
his misunderstanding of Popper not to mention Darwin.
Feyerabend is not really defending the church here. Hes making the point that
in order to get his theory out and give it life Galileo had to at some stage
johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck wrote:
> it seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend.
It seems to me that "the church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful
to reason than Galileo himself" l
Hi PGC
With respect, you've embarked on a fools errand there, PGC. Given the way John
has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will end up not being a
contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who pretty much founded
semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse as psychol
Hi John
>> Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einstein didn't need Popper to tell them how
>> to get knowledge out of nature, and absolutely no change in how science was
>> done happened in 1934, the year Popper's book was published. None
>> whatsoever.
Newton and Darwin would have had problems
--- Original Message ---
From: "Bruno Marchal"
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:12, chris peck wrote:
> Hi John
>
> >> Exactly, Newton and Darwin and Einst
er claim on resources
generally I would have thought...thus the current criticism of String Theory.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: "Bruno Marchal"
Sent: 19 September 2013 12:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
Hi John
>>It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a idea isn't getting anywhere,
>>that is to say if it doesn't produce new interesting ideas, your time would
>>be better spent doing something else.
Whats with this idea that the only good ideas are ones it would take a genius
to realiz
ried, and he didn't put the mystery under the rug.
Bruno
On 18 Sep 2013, at 18:25, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Bruno
>
> We don't have to accept Popper's demarcation principle in order to
> understand that it has genuinely been influential or that Popper's
> argument
Hi John
>> 250 years ago the young Jean-Paul Marat tried to get into the French Academy
>> of Science on the basis of his thesis on animal magnetism. The greatest
>> chemist of the 18'th century, Antoine Lavoisier recommended against this and
>> called Marat's paper worthless because it led t
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp practitioner, about
to be duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow, is asked to estimate his
chances of arriving at Moscow. Allegedly I should feel it to be 50/50 and this
establ
Hi Liz
Interesting. There's another thought experiment, or gambit, MWIers raise
involving quantum immortality.
In this, some quantum event at time t triggers a gun to shoot (or not shoot)
the MWIer.
Traditionally, MWIers argue the only reason they would not take the gambit is
because they wou
Hi
Well Im sure that I am missing something important, but I can't see it so far...
>>The diary is the one that you have with you. You will not have two
diaries, since you cannot experience being in Moscow and Wsahington at
the same time with contradicting the "survivability" axiom of
COMP. Ther
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
I thought this clip might tickle people on this list pink. Some people have too
much time on their hands and too much talent. Im afraid I can't comment on the
accuracy of the lyrics, my noodle doesn't stretch that far.
All the best.
Hi Brent
>> Mainly because it makes "I" ambiguous. One answer would be the probability
>> of me being in Moscow is zero and the probability of me being in Washington
>> is zero, because I am going to be destroyed.
Another answer would be the probability of me being in Moscow is one and the
pr
>> If there is an entity that remembers being me at time t1 then the me
at time t1 survives. For example, if I fall asleep on a plane and wake
up on another continent 8 hrs later, I have survived despite the time
and space gap and despite the fact that the matter in metabolically
active parts of my
Hi Russel
Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent does
too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this and then
offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which were certainties
rather than indeterminacies. He didn't get back t
Hi Bruno, and thanks for the reply.
>> Precisely: the expectation evaluation is asked to the person in Helsinki,
>> before the duplication is done, and it concerns where the person asked will
>> feel to be, from his first person point of view.
---
Hi Alberto
Were there ever genuinely naked questions? ie. Was there really a time when
ideas were not framed by the exciting possibilities offered by the contemporary
technology?
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: "Alberto G. Corona"
Sent: 29 September 2013 7:59 PM
To: "everything-l
Hi Liz
>> The scientist naturally assigns a 50% chance to each outcome, even though he
>> knows that he's duplicated by worlds splitting, and that in reality "he will
>> see both" But there seems to be a lot of trouble with the comp version
>> for some reason.
Bruno has a meeting in wash
Hi Bruno
>>You might quote mùe, but I make clear and insist, at each step of the UDA,
>>that the question is addressed before the duplication.
You insist but you do not make clear. Even in this reply you state: "On the
contrary, it is very simple. After the duplication "
>> The confirmatio
tep 3? To what extent are people giving Bruno the
benefit of the doubt because its a bit like Everett?
All the best
> From: stath...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:40:47 +1000
> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> O
d.
Perhaps what I do wrong here is paying Bruno the respect of taking him at his
word?
Regards.
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:32:25 +1000
> From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2
Hi Bruno
[JC] Because step 3 sucks.
[Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this.
His point is convincing me.
regards.
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200
> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
> From: te...@telmomenezes.com
> To: everything-list@go
Hi Liz
>> Is there something wrong with quantum indeterminacy?
Apart from the fact the MWI removes it? And that that is the point of MWI? And
that probability questions in MWI are notoriously thorny?
This is why I resort to the Quantum Suicide experiment or better still to
Quantum Russian Roul
4 October 2013 06:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
> You were kind enough to let the list know, along with Chris Peck, that the
> flaw in the reasoning concerning step 3 of the UDA is "it sucks".
>
> Unless you guys backtrack and quit abusing the fact that Bruno's
>
Hi Brent
>> This is true, but it's also something Bruno has said many times. If comp is
>> correct (to the extent that the mind is a computation, at least) then this
>> is happening all the time. Heraclitus was right, you aren't the same person
>> even from one second to the next.
I think Hera
Hi Bruno
>> Are you saying that the step 3 would provide a logical reason to say "no" to
>> the doctor, and thus abandoning comp?
I'm saying only the suicidal would expect a 50/50 chance of experiencing Moscow
(or Washington) after teleportation and then say yes to the doctor.
regards
From: m
Bruno's theory, but not MWI, of having issues here.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:03:53 +0200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2013/10/7 chris peck
Hi Bruno
>> Are you saying that the step 3 would provid
Hi Bruno
>> I don't see why. There is a chance of 1/2 to feel oneself in M, and of 1/2
>> to feel oneself in W, but the probability is 1 (assuming comp, the protocol,
>> etc.) to find oneself alive.
This begs the question. And the probability of finding oneself alive is 1 in
both your view an
Hi Liz
>> This is not, however, how people normally view these matters. The physicist
>> feels that he had a (say) 50% chance of him observing spin-up despite his
>> knowledge of the MWI, and I guess Helsinki man feels the same way about
>> arriving in Moscow, if only because our brains are "wi
Hi Brent
But one of the essential things about quantum mechanics is futures are
uncertain even give complete knowldge.
I disagree. This is still 'up for grabs' and dependent on whether the
interpretation is indeterminsitic (copenhagen,etc) or deterministic (MWI). Its
a feature of MWI that all
Hi Liz
>>
Oh dear, I think I will go and lie down now.
(Or then again, I won't...)
Precisely. Being a true MWI believer you can be certain of both. :)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:35:56 +1300
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@google
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.
That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theor
e more
accurate. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as
vica versa.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
didn't.
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:09:41 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote:
Brent
be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping
>> my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a
>> moment - they wanted to avoid).
Im sure you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200
Subject:
it's also an opportunity for more control.
Or should we be good with handing control of the internet, as well, to the UN?
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to
implement?
-Original Message-
From: chris peck
To: everything-list
Sent: Sun, Apr
myself in an attempt to better express what I was
trying to say.
Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason other than
looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret the
readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychologi
>> Oh, when it suits your prejudice
it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer need to read the
papers and decide for yourself.
Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and
you're
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
>> Oh,
when it suits yo
stently been that the truth of a statement is not
to be decided by who has said it, but by what has been said.
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:19:06 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
ect: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
> > >> To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
> >
> > So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by de
the science, you can always try suing
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck wrote:
> > >> Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find
> > >> it
> > very difficult indeed.
> >
> > All attempts to w
ink climate change is occurring', then it is a
fallacy. Things are not true because people believe them right?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:59:53 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to meet
them. Its not about the UDA.
It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps
duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.
yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel was a blast. Cinema for cinema's sake.
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:39:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Recently had fun with this in cinema, now out on DVD/Blueray
en the film, could people please
put "Spoiler Alert" in the email before you give away crucial details to a
movie? Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't seen. If I had
read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have been pissed off.
Thanks,Terr
>> Simple comp predicts that in W, the H-guy opens the door and sees only W and
>> ~M (as those letters refers to the first person experience, not the
>> intellectual belief), and that in M, the H-guy opens the door and sees only
>> M and ~W. Both concludes that P(W & M) was 0, and know better,
>> the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his
>> experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be "seeing one
>> city among W and M", i.e. "W or M".
nah. he can expect to have two mutually exclusive experiences. He will dream of
being in Red Square and o
>> Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person
>> experience.
Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be
exclusive by definition .
If anyone besides you thinks I would argue any different they should look
again. I argued that in worl
Quentin
>> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results, so
>> probability should also be one
Deterministic branching leads to trouble rendering the idea of probability
coherent. Go figure! Who would ever have guessed determinism and chance were
difficult to marry...
Subjec
ugh to see that he doesn't take the
Bruno-Quentin approach of praying the problem will go away by pretending it
doesn't exist.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:48:51 +0200
Subject: RE: A riddle for John Clark
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Le 23 juil. 2015 05:
@ Bruno
[John] >> >> Bruno Marchal is correct, that is not ambiguous, that is a
flat out logical contradiction.
[Bruno] >> Where?
The problem arises because if "You" = "person who remembers Helsinki" then you
ought to be able replace one for the other without truth values altering. Thats
@ John
>> In MWI "You" is the only thing that the laws of physics allow Quentin
>> Anciaux to observe that is organized in a Johnkclarkian way ... With
>> duplicating chamber stuff if the bet was "you will see Moscow" I don't know
>> how to resolve the bet because I don't know who "you" is.
em for you. You
have to do that bit. Personally, I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless
you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chr
ou have to do
that bit. I don't think you'll ever fix step 3 unless you try a bit harder.
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A riddle for John Clark
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:45:40 +0200
On 27 Jul 2015, at 05:04, chris peck wrote:@ Bruno
[John] &g
@ Bruno
>> You forget that you and Peck are the only one having a problem here.
Im not sure thats true. True, there is a fair amount of uncritical support,
but from what I see people kind of give you the benefit of the doubt at step 3
agreeing that there is something wishy washy about it. Pe
@ Pierz
>> If he refuses to
> acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then
> fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that
> effect.
but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do not cause much trouble when duplicates
end up in separate universes? Thats
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's
me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying
colours. lol.
I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs
then you all just failed to do that. A mo
>> Once there are experience, we can only have partial consensus. Now, I know
>> better salvia than DMT, and the resemblance of the experience is striking.
>> It goes like
-30% feel the "feminine presence" (called lady D, or virgin Maria, etc..).
-75% feel the "rotation/vortex"
-67% feel the "a
Bruno
>> And someone asked JC, before the duplication, what do you expect to live. JC
>> remarked that "you" is ambiguous. Oh, but you agreed that you will survive,
>> so you expect to live some experience, no? Let me ask you this how to you
>> evaluate the chance to see 0 on the paper after op
Maybe the Onion cartoon didn't set anyone off, but it just isn't true that
these three Algerians are the only people who behave psychotically in the face
of free speech.
During the first salvos of the battle of Fallujah the allies ransacked and shut
down the general hospital because it was rel
Subject: Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:49 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Since 1961 muslims have been subjected to increasingly draconian
restrictions on their freedome and a media th
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google
I have a question for people here who know the issues better than me:
I was having an argument about alleged Quantum Immortality/Quantum suicide
with some people who argue that because the 2nd law of thermodynamics
continues regardless in each universe a 'me' continues within, I should
ultimat
Hello everyone
I just want to post a message of thanks for the replies you have all given
me. It really is appreciated whether for or against the proposition.
by 'eck you're a brainy lot!
thank you all very much.
Chris.
_
Rate y
Hello
The time has come again when I need to seek advice from the everything-list
and its contributors.
Penrose I believe has argued that the inability to algorithmically solve the
halting problem but the ability of humans, or at least Kurt Godel, to
understand that formal systems are incompl
cheers Bruno. :)
>From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Penrose and algorithms
>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 18:40:50 +0200
>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>Le 09-juin-07, à 13:03, chris peck a écrit :
>
> &
temporal dimensions
orthogonally configured, >>computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].
What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
directions?
Regards
Chris.
From: James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@esk
ct: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:54:55 -0400
Dear Chris,
I hope to be able to convince you that the ideas that you express
below do not yield a coherent narrative. But you must make up your own
mind. There are so many assumpti
Samuel Johnson did refute Berkeley.
The main thrust of Berkley's argument is to show that sensory perception is
indirect, and therefore the existance of a material cause for those
perceptions is an unjustified inference in contravention of Occam's razor.
The argument that the look, texture, s
Hi Bruno;
There are problems with Berkley to be sure, but I dont think Johnson had
much of a grasp of them. Are there good objections to Berkley? Certainly.
Did SJ propose any? Not really.
I agree ontologically. But I disagree epistemologically. It is like with
Mendeleev classification of th
Hi Lee;
You see Samuel Johnson as a realist?
I think I started off a naive realist, became a realist and quickly became
confounded by the absurdity of the position. If I 'understood that there can
be things like optical illusions', I did so honestly, they told me something
very clear about th
Hi Lee;
Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons
'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails
some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this
definition to know something. Its a little sceptical isnt it?
Bruno wrote:
No. But then your definition of theology is perhaps a little bit to much a
contingent matter.
Perhaps the word "theology" has too many connotations.
I agree largely.
I think the correct distinction to make between what people seem to mean wrt
the religion/science dispute is bet
ue' method that garauntees futhering
knowledge. There are many ways of understanding, and many ways of enquiring.
How much did relative space/time as concept cost compared to the non
descovery of the Higgs Boson?
Regards Chris.
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "c
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on "1st person" has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
nothing
has ever come of it.
Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's.
I suppose it is hard to build from the cogito. Descartes didnt manage it.
However, to ignore it altogether is just lazy and is hardly a argument
against those who dont.
regards.
Chris.
From: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: chris peck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: subject
m.
Now, if realists are prepared to accept inferences from perception about an
uncertain - at least indirectly witnessed - external realm, why cant they
accept an inference about mentality that is no less certain than that? What
do I have to choose between platonism and realism here? It se
Brent wrote:
I'm sure that more than one philosopher has made this criticism.
Including yourself. I agree with the criticism, but I dont see its
relevance with regards to the importance of subjectivity and introspection
with regards to knowledge. I admire Descartes as a man, not so much as
Might you say a few more words about the method you refer to?
sure. Its known as doubt.
I know that I may be asking a lot with the following so please ignore
it if inconvenient: about this "method": is there a body of work
based upon this method?
Yes. Science.
Is it at all falsifiable?
Hello;
My name is Chris Peck, this is my joining post. I have not seen anyone
elses, so im not entirely sure what's expected.
I have Ba in Philosophy from University College London, and an MSc in IT
from the same institution.
Im interested in philosophy of science - particularl
o on, in which
anything logically possible has been actualised at least in one universe or
another. I think Stalnaker would disagree with that, possible worlds are
just convenient ways of considering possibility, rather than actuality. im
sure this is all obvious to you, I'll read your PHD and
101 - 200 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
