maybe it is a postulate that (in my mind) what you write does not make sense? 

A Cc generated/operated by tissue - partially transferred to parts unknown  
without (the?) tissue and still functions? I am a simpleminded primitive 
peasant, cannot condone that you, a 'thinking' person (no insult meant) accept 
the drawing of final conclusions upon our present insufficient knowledge base. 
50 years ago everything was explained as a telephone switchboard, 150 years ago 
as a steam-engine.
Always by metaphors we did not (yet) quite know and science was happy. Even 
things like phlogiston or vitality survived for some time. Today it is comp on 
equipment and process exceeding the present technique and things borrowed from 
sci-fi. And people take it SSOOO seriously! 
E.g. your calculation of the speed of thought upon the physical registrations 
of visual measurements. It is the inertia of the tool we use. Thought,  by all 
metaphors, is timeless/spaceless, you can experimentally proove it to yourself 
by 'thinking' of Dzhingis Kahn, Cleopatra and Hitler around a table in South 
america. Or: on the  Moon. 

You wrote:(I added the asterisks)
"... *if I found myself* continuing to have similar experiences despite 
teleportation, ..." -- what I would read as  corrected into::
"... *if I think about myself as*...."  making a difference for me in drawing 
conclusions. And you emphasized this in your subsequent sentence in
"IF... THEN" -  by the capitalization. So: if not, not.  A typical 'sowhat'. 

I was hoping that you refer a bit to my ideas, not just repeat yours. 
But, alas, so are the lists....

Have a good weekend

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:55 PM
  Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds


  I guess my brain is generating my consciousness, but I regard this as a 
contingent fact. My conciousness is that which I experience, and if I found 
myself continuing to have similar experiences despite teleportation, brain 
transplant, resurrection in Heaven or whatever, then I would have survived as 
me. Note that I am not saying these things are possible (perhaps this is where 
you are scornful of the fantastic scenarios), just that IF in these situations 
I continued to think I was me, THEN ipso facto, I would still be me, despite 
losing the original body and brain.

  Stathis Papaioannou

    Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
    Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:54:32 -0500

    interesting.  See my additional question after your reply
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Stathis Papaioannou 
      Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
      Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds

      John Mikes writes:
      > Stathis:
      > your concluding sentence is
      > " But my brain just won't let me think this way."
      > *
      > Have you been carried away?
      > Who is "your brain" to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only 
that the mechanism of your brain, the main tool "YOU"  use in mental activity, 
is not predesigned for such action?) So: is there a pre-design (ha ha)?
      > More importantly: who is that "me" in conflict with 'your'  brain?
      > How do you 'want' to 'think' something (which involves your brain) when 
'your brain' won't let it happen?
      > OK, let's introduce "you", the homunculus, who wants to think some way 
and your 'brain' did not reach the sophistication of the design (yet?) to 
comply - as a reason for "won't let me".
      > With what 'tool' did "you" WANT to "think this way"? How many people 
are you indeed?
      > *
      > I am asking these stupid qiestions in the line of my search for SELF 
("I"), vs. the total interconnectedness of our personal existence with 'the 
rest of the world'. I expect that you may provide useful hooks for me in such 
      > John

      "I" am the product of a consciousness-generating mechanism, my brain, in 
the same way as "walking" is the product of a locomotion-generating mechanism, 
my legs. "I" am not identical to my brain just as "walking" is not identical to 
my legs. Now, of course "I can only think what my brain will let me think", and 
of course "I can only walk where my legs will let me walk", but these 
statements are not tautologies in the way that saying "I can only think what I 
can think" or "I can only walk where I can walk" are. 

      Stathis Papaioannou

      so you consider the biologic tissue-grown (stem-cell initiated) BRAIN the 
origin of a thinking person? Life growing out from 'matter' - which is the 
figment of our explanatory effort to poorly and incompletely observed impact 
received from parts unknown? Funny: you invested so many posts into the 
(partial) teleportation and copying into other universes - did you really MEAN
      the transfer of tissues (like in StarTrek?) How 'bout the multiple  
'copying' of matter?  How can you duplicate the atoms for copying? StarTrek had 
only 1 copy and that, too, by 'physical' transfer.
      Save the wrong conclusion: I am not defending this line, I find it unreal 
and just mention the position of yours and others on this list for argument's 
      I find it 'interesting, but amazing' that different brains (see: the 
multiplicity of humans and other animals among themselves) behave like mental 
clones in accepting very similar "3rd person views" into their 1st person 
ideas, to form images of the 'material world' etc. Mental images, that is, 
which, however you would make into their own origination? Are we all (and the 
world, the existnce etc.) only fiction of ourselves? 

      Then again I feel that the 'consciousness' you generate by the brain may 
be very close to personality, self, the "I" we are talking about. Which would 
close the loop:  "there must be the 'primitive matter' forming the brain and 
out of that comes the 'not-so-primitive' matter, the mental complexity and 

      I agree withBruno to disagree in the absolute primitive matter concept. 
      It is only an explanatory imaging in this universe's consciousness 
activity to order the part of the system we so far detected. Together with 
space-time and OUR pet-causality - the 'within model' ordering.


      PS I still would appreciate to be directed to a short text explaining the 
essence of ASSA (RSSA?). J

  Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows LiveT Spaces friends 
list. Check it out!


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 
11:11 AM

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to