From: Joe E. Dees (jdees0@students.uwf.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 03 1998 - 16:31:17 MDT
> From: VirgilT7@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 22:46:14 EDT
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> Subject: Re: Information
> Reply-to: extropians@extropy.com
> In a message dated 7/3/98 8:48:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> harara@shamanics.com writes:
>
> <<
> I think the use of these notions is to show us just how much of philospohy
> and discussion of consciousness is utter nonsense. Also in showing us the
> implicit assumptions we use in ideas we think are well defined. First on my
> nonsense list is the word "real".
> >>
>
> How exactly does the use of such notions show how much of philosophy is
> nonsense?
>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
And isn't your statement about philosophy a philosophical one? Isn't
it therefore -- by your own definition (assuming the author to also
be conscious and to be attempting a discussion of the issue) -- most
likely nonsense, too?
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:16 MST