From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 21:05:22 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
Scott, Paul is de-facto right, and it's not complicated
The inorganic, biological and social levels are intellectual patterns
(postulated by intellect) but by definition of the MoQ's postulation
(and a thousand others) they do not involve intellect. That's the
point.
Scott:
So are you saying that all we need to argue in favor of a metaphysical
position is to define things in such a way that the metaphysical position
follows? That may make Paul right de jure, but not de facto. Philosophy is
mostly arguing over definitions.
Ian continued:
(And that's before we get on to questions of what intellect,
sentience, consciousness are and how they come to be .... which is
where the interesting debates are to be had, if we ever get to move
on.)
Scott:
I've given my reasons for why there is no "coming to be" in re intellect,
sentience, and consciousness. Doesn't it seem that those reasons need to be
rebutted first?
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 22:02:31 BST