DM> We may well find all memory is stored "in a somewhere" or might even go
 DM> FAR beyond that.
 RT> As every physical thing decays, then this "somewhere" you mention
 KK> must be RT>non-physical.
 KK> Yup.  But that doesn't imply that it doesn't exist.  As the saying goes,
 KK> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Please recall that that
 KK> is not an argument in favor of this spiritual realm; it is only a
 KK> statement of the limits of science.
   I think, Keith, that you have just toppled the "no part of reality could
exist unless *I* validate it" illusion and its advocates ain't gonna like
THAT.  
   My study and reading table is in such disarray right at the moment that I
can't locate the reference but the latest issue of _The Atlantic Monthly_
carries an interesting article on the matter of empiricism vs.
transcendentalism.  It doesn't go TOO much into depth but is worth reading.
When we survey such tragedies as that Jonesboro incident it becomes a bit
scary, I think, to realize that, like it or not, all man has to stand between
him and the breakdown of order in the world is his mind-brain within WHATEVER
reality it comes into being.  It's always fun to poke fun at Plato and
Aristotle because the revelation of reason to them and to their antecedent
thinkers did not place them in POSSESSION of being where they didn't think
they should be anyway.  I see the modern gnostic intellectual as suffering
most from that anyhow.  Science can EASILY become an ideology to anyone not 
n
love with its freedom.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------