From: Tomaz Kristan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 21:42:53 MDT
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:39:52 -0400, Tim Duyzer <email@example.com> wrote:
> if we are not blind to qualia, then we possess
> the ability to form and agree to a definition of it. What is that
I have to say, that points and planes _are not_ defined inside
Euclidean geometry. Just how they behave.
There is no definition of natural numbers either. Everything what
apparently obeys the Peano's axioms, is a natural number.
There is no definition of what sets and elements are either. The Set
Theory just describes, how they interact. Whatever they may be.
The same with the force and the mass in Newton's physics.
Definitions of the fundamentals don't exist. Just the governing axioms
tell us how they are doing, not what they are.
Don't bother to define qualia, we *know* what it is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT