On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:52 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
> >
> > > any reality?  According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
> > > the stuff in the Plenitude is useless junk.  *Someone* (somebody
> > > bigger that you or I ;) has to decide what is the good stuff.  The
> > > good stuff IN *all* of the Plenitude, not just part of it.  This is
> > > what I mean by being in charge of it.
> >
> > The good stuff knows that it's good stuff,  just as you will still know
> that
> > you're you if you're kidnapped in your sleep and taken to a distant
> place
> > full of things that aren't you. This is the defining feature of a
> conscious
> > entity. (This is repeating Russell's answer, but it's perhaps the single
> > most important idea of this list: everything + anthropic principle =
> > observed reality).
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> Like in my last Meaning of Life post, explaining observed reality is
> only half of the equation of the meaning of life.  Modern science is
> only in the left side of the brain of humanity.

Do you agree then that science can in principle explain observed reality, to
the point where we might be able to assemble a conscious human being from
the appropriate chemicals?

Stathis Papaioannou

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

Reply via email to