I admire this list. Somebody asks a silly question and 'we' write hourlong wisdom(s) upon it. After my deep liking of Stathis's "what difference does it make?" (or something to that meaning) - my question went a step deeped: *for: "How do I know I am "I"? - (rather:* "How (Why?) do I think I am "I"?)
I ask: "DO I?" (then comes Stathis). * Bruno's 'firmly knowable' *arithmetic truth *is a true exception: WE (=the ways humans think) made up what we call 'arithmetic' - the way that "WE" may accept it as 'truth'. (I am still with David Bohm's "numbers are human invention" - did not read acceptable (for me) arguments on the numbers-originated everything - in the wider sense. But this is not this thread). John Mikes PS now - it seems - I joined the choir. JM On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > truth). > 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 we're > 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 conditionals, > etc. > > 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 new > 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 you > > and me. She was just highly paralyzed. > > > > You mean Rom Houben (a man)? > > > http://article.wn.com/view/2009/11/25/Is_coma_man_Rom_Houben_REALLY_talking_Mystery_as_critics_sla/ > > > > 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 help > <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 communication', > saying it had been 'completely discredited'. " > > Just because there has once been a mistake doesn't prove it is difficult > to get right - only that it is difficult to always be right. > > > Sure. It raises many interesting questions. > > Bruno Marchal > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
