On 05 Dec 2009, at 01:30, Brent Meeker wrote:
> It is also infinitely ignorant and so long as it remains that way it's
> nothing to me.
We are all infinitely ignorant (if only with respect to arithmetical
The universal machine or numbers are not nothing.
> This is just another form of the "everything" universal
> acid. Just postulate an everything and then we know the something
> interested in must be in there somewhere.
The "everything" of comp is just elementary arithmetic.
It predicts the existence of a a level (of isolation or independence,
really) such that many computations interferes, as QM confirms
(retrospectively). It predicts symmetry and a quantum logic of
And a cute arithmetical, and testable, interpretation of Phytagoras-
Plato-Plotinus, + a vast range of mystics and free thinkers.
I ditinctly and clearly not follow Tegmark or Bayesian Anthropism on
this point. The physical *laws* have a reason, and we can find them
from the digital hypothesis.
Frankly, Monsieur est difficile ;-)
>> It is not necessary for the reasoning, but there are sequence of
>> thought experiences which can help you to figure out what is it like
>> losing all memories.
> I wasn't talking about "losing all memories", but about not having
> memory, i.e. not only losing old memories, but also not forming any
> memories. A computer without memory can't compute.
The computer, or the relative universal machine (relative to another
probable universal machine) makes only higher the relative probabilty
that the internal consciousness flux will makes itself manifest
relatively to that probable universal machine/number.
It makes possible for a universal machine to say hello to itself, or
to "another" universal machine.
>> Some would say that the point consists in losing, for a short period,
>> that human kind of consciousness.
> But without memory how would one know it had been lost or not?
That is again the point. "There" we don't know that.
But with salvia divinorum, when you control well the dosage and
timing, or smoke only the leaves, you don't need to do the amnesia,
you can just dissociate that "universal you" from your contingent
"terrestrial you", like taking a big distance from the contingencies.
It is a "desappropriation".
>> To judge the presence of consciousness is difficult. Recently, in
>> France, after having been considered as being in a unconscious
>> comatose state for 23 years, a woman, with the help of her family,
>> has succeed to convince its doctors that she was as conscious than
>> and me. She was just highly paralyzed.
> You mean Rom Houben (a man)?
Well, not really. It was a french woman. In Belgium they have
considered her as fully conscious, and it has been confirmed in the
USA. I heard this on a radio, and a friend confirms. I will try to
find the information. In any case I allude to the case, by decision,
where the consciousness is not considered as controversial. Like the
Ingberg case in France. Usually, it means, I think, that the patient
can communicate through different speech therapists.
From the video, I would say Houben seems fully conscious to me.
> "Experts are casting doubt on claims that a man <http://everyman.com/>
> who doctors had believed was in a 23-year coma is truly conscious and
> communicating on his own. Belgian Rom Houben communicates with the
> <http://aidagencies.com/> of a speech therapist who moves his finger
> letter <http://letters.com/> by letter along a touch-screen keyboard.
> But yesterday experts slammed the method as 'Ouija board
> saying it had been 'completely discredited'. "
> Just because there has once been a mistake doesn't prove it is
> to get right - only that it is difficult to always be right.
Sure. It raises many interesting questions.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at