MoFPP

The term "2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness" is not merely a theoretical

Strawson on Experience and Experiencers in _Mental Reality_, Second Ed., Galen Strawson quotes Frege

before we get lost in a cloud of verbiage, I will summarize the argument thus far, as I see it. we

Who resolves what? Certainly an important question. There is no "who" anymore with the

Dear Sir >What is to be examined is this.What has to be investigated is this. >For the means of

Gary Moore wrote: >Related distantly to the Wittgenstein quote [dreaming] noted elsewhere, >I

Rajasekhar Goteti wrote: >>SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY explains that the language is the base of >

-----Original Message----- From: mo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

-----Original Message----- From: mo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:mo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

I've come across a passage that was attributed to Wittgenstein; but, which I do not recognize and

Cayuse wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>yes, we are discussing the fundamental nature of

Cayuse wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>Cayuse wrote: >>>LW addresses this issue in

mec...@sbcglobal.net wrote: >All brain processes occur within the "I" ... Any contrary

mec...@sbcglobal.net wrote: >... the 'movement' of self-reflection is the origin of all

walterhorn wrote: >jpolanik wrote: >>can nothingness experience afterimages? >No, but

On Aug 17, 2:17 pm, <mece...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Manuel Delaflor wrote: > >

DianaT80 wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>Here is another of Kierkegaard's comments on

For the one certain concept, I would suggest not "I think, therefore, I am"; but, rather:

Georges Metanomski wrote: jPolanik wrote: >[GM]: But, there is no "I am". >[JP]:

[Apologies to anyone getting duplicate copies. I first posted this about 2 days ago.] allen scult

geva...@aol.com wrote: >jPolanik writes: >Joe: on the contrary, the 'what am I'

Walter Horn wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>Walter Horn wrote: >>>Joseph Polanik

geva...@aol.com wrote: >jPolanik wrote: >[Joe]: a brain-injured person might retain the

geva...@aol.com wrote: >jPolanik wrote: >Jud: Because a neurologically traumatised person is

GEVA...@aol.com wrote: >Descartes discounted, or was obviously ignorant of the nature of the

geva...@aol.com wrote: >ros...@tin.it writes: >>Dear Jud, >>I read through your

Restatement of the Central Argument geva...@aol.com wrote: >jPol...@nc.rr.com writes: >Joe:

I been revising my website and I've added a page that focuses exclusively on defining 'am

Georges Metanomski wrote: >JP: (your) ambiguities remain ambiguous and controversial issues >

>GEVA...@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 19/11/2008 _jPo...@nc.rr.com_ writes: >[Joe]

[Joe]: I am the referent of 'I' whenever I say "I am". hence, I am self-aware.