Re: Philisophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it.

From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 19:19:18 MST

• Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: The New Cognitive Neurosciences"
• Previous message: Emlyn: "Re: Riddles (was: Lateral Thinking)"
• In reply to: J. R. Molloy: "Re: Philisophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I'm pretty sure that you don't think anything is a useful hypothesis. I
think you must be a postmodernist.

Emlyn

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Philisophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it.

> > Sound wisdom, but of course philosophy is not a ghost so belief in
> > anything is not required... ;)
>
> Correct. Philosophy is not a ghost. It is a useless hypothesis (like
> ghosts).
>
> Stay hungry,
>
> --J. R.
> 3M TA3
>
> =====================
> Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
> free will
>
>

• Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: The New Cognitive Neurosciences"
• Previous message: Emlyn: "Re: Riddles (was: Lateral Thinking)"
• In reply to: J. R. Molloy: "Re: Philisophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:33 MST