RE: You're hunting wild geese

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:58:06 +0100

It answers your question. If you want your 'empty' need to be satisfied, I
recommend introspection.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Meeker [SMTP:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Tuesday, 06 June, 2000 5:05 AM
> To: everything-list
> Subject: Re: You're hunting wild geese
>
> On 05-Jun-00, Higgo James wrote:
> > I have made my explanation abundently clear: WAP If our OM did not
> include
> > 'we seem to need an explanation for seeming to be observers' then this
> > question would not exist in the first place, so only 'seekers to the
> answer
> > to that question'-type ideas can seek to answer that question.
> >
> > I simply apply WAP to ideas, not observers. I have said this several
> times,
> > and it *does* answer your question.
>
> OK, I guess I do understand you. Usually the WAP is used to explain why
> the
> universe has certain chracteristics by saying they are the ones necessary
> that
> a class of physical entities - namely us - can exist. But you apply it to
> ideas; and as I understand it not to a particular class of ideas but to
> whatever particular ideas occur to you. So far as I can see this is a
> completely empty theory that boils down to whatever is is. Do you have
> some
> way of limiting it?
>
> Brent Meeker
Received on Tue Jun 06 2000 - 00:00:46 PDT