Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections

["Eray Ozkural \(exa\)" <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>]

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> So following your analogy, you seem to hold that one could say
> "categories of the understanding just are anything described as a
> mathematical category".  And that, I think, is ludicrous, because it's
> very hard to find any universal which is *not* a category under that
> definition.

It seems to me that I have to maintain that categories of the understanding
can be described as a mathematical category. You would also have to
find the theories of some prominent philosophers of mind/cognitive
scientists ridiculous, if you find this implication too naive.

I won't state whether I agree with the following argument, but there is
a radical argument that goes like this:
  "There is no subjective phenomena; they are illusionary."

The reference of "they" is a bit complicated here, but I'm certain
that the argument can be understood with this concise statement.

What is your opinion?

Thanks,

-- 
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo