At 01:52 AM 12/02/00 -0600, Joe Dees wrote:
>> >learns/constructs, utilizes and traverses these systems.
>> And? So?
>So it's interesting and perhaps useful to figure out things, and that
>which seems at first blush to be central and fundamental (the
>ontology of human consciousness) has a pretty good chance of
>being significant. If it's correct, knowledge has been advanced; if
>not, we close off an unprodictive alternative, which also can lead to
>an advance in knowledge (of what's NOT true).
Yes, that's the background to all and any of our discussions here (maybe
even of the jokes). I was actually asking what you believe might be the
specific implications of your (rather gnomic) addition to the standard
phenomenological account you summarised at some length. (And which I take
to be a term paper, or an extract from one?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:42 MDT