Le 19-oct.-06, à 13:58, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> David Nyman wrote:
>> 1Z wrote:
>>
>>> This *is* ecumenicism. The buck stops here. What higher
>>> court of appeal is there , than consideration of the nature of
>>> EVERYTHING?
>>
>> Touché!
>>
>>> If Bruno isn't reifying numbers, he's in trouble.
>>
>> And if the materialist isn't reifying the observables, he's right in
>> there with him.
>
> Obviously the materialist is reifying matter.
> But then we can *see* material things.
You are lucky. I see *appearance* of matter, but I don't see existing
primary matter. The existence of this one has to be postulated. But I
have already criticize your "non-definition" of primary matter. I find
that concept far more nebulous than consciousness for example, which
certainly exists as a receptacle of the appearance. I don't doubt about
those appearance.
> Reification pers e is not the problem; the problem
> is reifying what is invisible/uninteractive.
I agree.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Fri Oct 20 2006 - 05:39:36 PDT