I think I'm an 'abstract perspectivist', or something. Everything is made of
the same substance, but the nature of the thing and the nature of the
substance depend on how you look at it, and as long as you can find an
equivalence between two functional models, then they're both equally valid
(if not equally useful).
As to the difference between 'consciousness moving' and 'moving between
consciousnesses,' I suppose that's a good example - they are both
acceptable, as we can't differentiate the two from our perspective, and the
definitions we're working with are somewhat on the hazy side....
2008/10/22 Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Rosefield wrote:
> > Oh, no, more that we can probably define 'mind-space' or
> > 'consciousness-space', in which every point represents a possible
> > (conscious!) mind-state and has an associated spectrum of possible
> > physical substrata, and that there is a probability function defined
> > across the space such that for any two points there is a probability of
> > experiencing one after the other.
> So you're a dualist. The mind-states are one kind of thing (possibly
> or mathematical) and consciousness is something else that "occupies them"
> "realizes them".
> > In other words, if I drop a ball I am likely to observe the ball
> > dropping and hitting the ground - a set of highly probable trajectories
> > along mind-space.
> > It's not so much consciousness moving from one state to the other, as to
> > which conscious state I shall find myself in next.
> How is that different from moving? You never find yourself in more than
> state at a time - even though there are many possible states.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at