From: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@...>
> I can not explain, because i am saying that those questions may be
> (i don't say they are, just they may be) impossible to understand for
> a human mind. I mean our mind may not be capable of thinking accuratly.
It doesn't have to, but whether it is thinking accurately or not it has to exist
in order to do that thinking.
This does not say anything about the validity of the thoughts it thinks--or the
nature of its reality--or even that its world must be consistent with reason.
> Don't ask me what definition of exist could match this. i did not say
> descartes was not inteligent enough to find it though i am, i say human
> mind may be unable to understand. So to me, any philosophical
> demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think that..., but it can
> not concluded : i prooved that... Nothing is prooved since you have a
> least use one postulate: reason is unfailable.
You may be right there but the issue is that whether you can say it is fallible
or not it must be there to have that quality. *From* that point you can go on
to demonstrate things 'it is reasonable to think'.
*Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/