Brent Meeker wrote:
> That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
> pointed out was an unsupported inference. The most that could be said is,
> "There's thinking." If your ontology includes processes like "thinking"
> then I suppose it does precede your empistemology. But you can't kick
> thinking and if you could it wouldn't kick back - unless the ESPers are
> right. ;-)
I don't want my ontology to precede my epistemology. I think
both claims are silly.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Aug 13 2006 - 19:04:35 PDT