> Dan wrote:
> >I can't see myself contributing further to this thread. Unless someone
> >has a rebuttal that isn't logically inconsistent, a counter-proof that
> >isn't self-referential, self refuting or semantically imprecise, then
> >I'd love to see it die an ignoble death :-)
>
> A rebuttal of WHAT? You guys are saying you have some definitions of
> existence, consciousness, and reality that are irrefutable and
> self-evident. Well isn't that nice. And excuse me if I get on with my
> life and ignore your little cult of consistency. Consistency has gotten
> me into more trouble...
*Especially* consistency without content?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////