Bruno wrote > Le 23-juin-05, ? 05:38, Lee Corbin a ?crit : > > > you *can* be in two places at the same time. > > From a third person pov: OK. > From a first person pov: how?
Right. "From a first person... you cannot be." This further illustrates the limitations of the first person account, its subjectivity, its errors, and its total poverty of thought. The objective view, which brings us much more into alignment with what is actually the case, is, as always, the third-person point of view. A good historical analogy is this: to really understand the planets, moons, and sun, it was necessary to totally abandon the Earth-centric view, and try to see the situation from the bird's eye view. By remaining fixated with appearances, and how it looks *from here*, we could never have advanced to the truth. It is the same here; if you are interested in knowing what the case is, and not merely what the appearances are, then you have to understand that you are a physical process, and it may so happen that you execute in different places, and in different times, and that overlaps are possible. Eugen comments > You can be in two places at the same time, but you can't > enjoy two different scenarios, or think individual thoughts. I disagree. Again, you slide back and forth between instantiations and programs, which, as you know, are not the same thing. What you have written is true of an instance. Were we to be completely consistent using your terminology, then we would have to say that you could not think A and then think B, because each instance of you (in time, this time) cannot think more than one thing. A program can run in two different places at the same time, and the program (treated as the pattern) is perfectly capable of receiving input X in one location at the same time that it receives input Y in another. It would then be correct to say that the program was enjoying two different scenarios at the same time. Lee