Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Happy Valentine's Day"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:03:32 -0500
robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree. Mind is the function of brain. I won't try to defend this
> > position, but I also hold open the possibility that mind may exist
> > independent of a brain, though it doesn't make sense to me at this time.
>
> If not a brain, then some other physical system. But disembodied mind is
> a nonsensical notion.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
It may be nonsensical to you, and it is in a way to me, but that doesn't
mean it's necessarily wrong. Like I said, though, I am not going to try
to defend the position, so conserve your energy and don't bother
attacking it.
-- Smiles, Tony
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Happy Valentine's Day"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|