The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
UF Philosophy Corner: Metaphysics by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 09:52:58
  Sounds like a free will:determinism question (n/t) by Illiad2009-04-02 09:54:09
    It's more a mind/body question, I think by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 10:01:17
      Basically it comes down to "Cogito Ergo Sum." by RetiQlum22009-04-02 10:57:16
        That's more or less the idea by MatthewDBA 2009-04-02 11:03:18
The conclusion that Haldane draws is that since purely physical processes can't lead us to a conclusion that we know to be true, then we are forced to deduce either that we can't know anything to be true (including the statement that our mental processes are the result of purely physical phenomena), or else that our minds are *not* the result of purely physical processes. Since the former conclusion leads us to be unable to state *anything* about the world, Haldane argues that the only rational conclusion is the latter.
[ Reply ]
          Non sequitur by PeKaJe2009-04-02 11:08:39
            I'm not sure what you mean. by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 11:10:30
              He unquestioningly accepts several assumption by PeKaJe2009-04-02 11:18:26
                I don't see him assuming "an unexplained process" by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 11:21:11
                  Ah, yes, that was about your rephrasing by PeKaJe2009-04-02 11:43:02
                    You BOTH missed the point: by RetiQlum22009-04-02 11:47:49
                      Indeed by PeKaJe2009-04-02 11:53:25
                        What leads you to believe by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 12:05:29
                          Anything more requires an assumption by PeKaJe2009-04-02 12:09:13
                            I still feel like I'm missing something by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 12:11:59
                              Your argument mentions natural processes by PeKaJe2009-04-02 12:20:24
                                But either natural processes exist, by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 12:24:38
                                Not quite by PeKaJe2009-04-02 12:40:14
                                Okay I assume that you'd agree that by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 12:46:02
                                You're assuming an "either/or" scenario by PeKaJe2009-04-02 13:01:32
                                Okay, I'll bring it back up tomorrow by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 13:04:56
                          The diskworld spins on the back of 4 elephants. by RetiQlum22009-04-02 12:18:29
                      You are all NOT my imagined fever dream. by Illiad2009-04-02 11:55:14
                        Right. Diane Lane incarnated as a llama, maybe. by Adiplomat2009-04-02 15:10:56
                          That was a camel. :p (n/t) by Illiad2009-04-02 16:30:50
                            Branching out, are we? by Adiplomat2009-04-02 18:17:29
                      I'm still not sure I follow by MatthewDBA2009-04-02 11:59:52
          3 degrees of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle by Classic_Jon2009-04-02 11:09:12

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)