|
|
|
|
|
|
by altruios
10 days ago
|
|
|
> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not. ...wat? > Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically. No: you have that reversed. Matter can be reasoned about, matter is a useful abstraction, e=mc^2. energy = matter*speed of light^2. No such formula exists for the mind. > I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight. Why is insistence a useful counter weight to factual arguments? |
|
|