Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell!rtech!wrs!hwajin
From: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: more Chinese Room
Message-ID: <860@wrs.wrs.com>
Date: 25 Feb 90 08:44:31 GMT
References: <1990Feb13.225830.13432@wam.umd.edu> <53tT02R288oV01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1990Feb16.182519.18166@wam.umd.edu> <1990Feb16.220511.27647@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <857@wrs.wrs.com> <1990Feb24.023246.29073@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com ()
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wind River Systems, Emeryville, CA
Lines: 22

In article <1990Feb24.023246.29073@Neon.Stanford.EDU> arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes:
>I'm not sure what this has to do with Descartes, though.  I've
>always thought that his major contribution to philosophy was the
>separation of mind and matter, which is certainly not what I'm
>proposing.  Analytic thought in general is much older than Descartes.
>Look at Aristotle, for example.  Perhaps you were thinking of Kant,
>whose distinction between the phenomena and the noumena can be seen
>in the distinction of the observer and his or her observations.  In
>any case, I don't see what any of this has to do with spirituality.

Huh?  Man, I'm tired of repeating the same responses to the same
questions.  You seem to be quoting Ken Presting's remarks on my
previous posting.  Read my response to his.  Ken's reference on Kant's
a priori -- "categories" as in the category of substance and
the category of causality -- was based on his wrong interpretation of
my comment.  [I'm still curious how he ended up jumping onto the
word category and miss the whole point of my reference to Descartes'
methodology.]  You're talking something totally unrelated.

-- 
Hwa Jin Bae (hwajin@wrs.com)
Wind River Systems