Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 02/26/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Back to theory"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:38:30 -0500
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gAbTd.36739$Am3.1112953@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> [...]>
> > And what about the preconditions to experience? How can you wait for
> > something if you have no concept of time?
>
>
> How can you have a concept of time without the experience of waiting?
>
What makes you think that the concept of time requires the experience of
waiting? Surely I can order things in time without actually WAITING for
anything. For example, today I'm going to go first to Zeller's, then to the
bank, then to the grocery store. There is no waiting involved, but time is
certainly a factor.
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Back to theory"
- Previous message: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
