Hi, I'm sorry, it's an accident. I keep hitting 'reply' rather than 'reply to all' and 
because of the way the list is set up, which
means I reply to the person who posted the message. It's a bad habit, because other 
lists I post to allow you to just hit 'reply'
and your message goes to the list. There's something in the email header which tells 
it where to send the reply to, apparently....

Apologies to anyone I've replied to directly, it wasn't intentional.

Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2001 6:59 a.m.
> To: Everything-list
> Subject: Re: FIN
>
>
> Hello Jacques
>
> On 01-Sep-01, Jacques Mallah wrote:
> >    Hello. (This is not posted to the list as you just replied to me
> > directly. If that was unintentional you can sent replies to
> the list,
> > I'm just pointing it out.)
> >
> >>>    Ok, although I would say to be more precise that you should
> >>> identify yourself with an implementation of a computation. A
> >>> computation must be performed (implemented) for it to give rise to
> >>> consciousness.
> >>
> >> This seems incoherent. What's the point of a computational
> >> explanation of the world if it requires that the computation be
> >> implemented...in some super-world?
> >
> >    The basic computational explanation is not of the world - it's of
> > conscious observations. As for the arena where things get
> implemented
> > - that could either be a physical world, or it could be
> Plato's realm
> > of math.
> >  Either way makes little difference for these issues, but surely at
> > least one of those exists.
>
> That an implementation might be in another physical world I can
> understand.
>
> I don't see how an implementation can be in Plato's realm of
> mathematics.  In mathematics there are axioms and theorems
> and proofs -
> none of these imply any occurence in time. You might be able to impose
> an order on theorems (ala' Godel) and it might be possible to identify
> this with time (although I doubt this can work), but even so
> it is just
> a single order that is implicit - there is no way to distinguish two
> different "implementations" of this order.
>
> Brent Meeker
>  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
> if there
> is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
> blind
> pitiless indifference.
>
>
>       ---Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden

Reply via email to