--- Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are comments overlapping
> the two parallel lists.
> Neil Lion wrote (in the FOR list thread "free-will"):
> >Then this is what I am talking about. Simply, a computer can have no
> >infallible 'inner perception' of memory.
If I understand this correctly, I agree. A processing unit is simply
a collection of descrete logic functions. They in and of themselves can
have no awareness of their member components.
Consciousness however seems to reside within the thread that connects
these logic elements through cause and effect.
> >This seems to be a fundamental
> >asset of conscious entities, which can have no classical explanation
> >computers are entirely classical).
> No classical explanation? Why? (Is it a dogma?).
Dogma is a human construct ment to impose a control scheme on it's
unwitting member populace. Please don't mistake religion and dogma for
spiritual exploration. They have nothing to do with each other.
> >I think any fundamental theory of the
> >world in which we live, is going to have to address this;
> See my URL for a systematic attempt to address that very question
> the hypothesis that we are computer-emulable.
> >how can I be so
> >certain of things, which simply 'don't exist' any more? (if we
> accept that
> >memory must be more than just a collection of bits). What is the
> nature of
> >this apparent 'link to the past'? If memory is simply a collection
> >bits, how can I be so sure that this /representation/ of what I have
> >experienced, is accurate?
Assuming time is real and an act must be carried out in some system
before one can experience the results elsewhere.
I see a monkey-grip on the illusion of cause and effect in most
clinical thinking. It's rather unfortunate.
> Perhaps we just cannot be sure of that link. This has nothing to do
> with infallibility of inner experiences. It is the link between first
> person experience and third person "reality" which can be fallible.
YOu use the word "reality" like there is a perfect reality seperate
from that which people perceive. I am certain this is false.
> >A big hurdle in this, is that although I may be
> >convinced that I was there to have perceived such-and-such, there is
> >way I can convince the outside world of this fact, as all I can ever
> do is
> >describe that experience, and they
> >would have to take my word for the fact that I had actually
> experienced it.
> I agree. You are almost giving the axiomatic definition of
> I am using. See below.
This is because one is attempting to share experiences within a
fundamentally flawed construct. That being that we are isolated egos
with only a physical medium to express in.
>From a mystic standpoint, true sharing is sharing of consciousness.
Something I've not seen anyone attempt describe here.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger.