Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/10/05
- Next message: JRoberts: "Re: transforming energy infinite"
- Previous message: Brian Tung: "Re: Could the IAU *officially* assign star names for a fee?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "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"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:35:56 GMT
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:34:54 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> The initial point was conditional on these processes being indeed 'some
>> action that takes place in the brain through purely physical entities
>> and interactions', and to agree with your assertion that in that case,
>> these processes must follow the basic principles of physic, regardless
>> of what kind of poorly understood superstructures we use to describe the
>> whole (such as e.g. 'mind').
>
>I believe we are on the same page with regard to this matter or is it
>this mind?.
Sure you're on the same page, Bob. You just don't know which page that
is.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: JRoberts: "Re: transforming energy infinite"
- Previous message: Brian Tung: "Re: Could the IAU *officially* assign star names for a fee?"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "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"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|