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 <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


Reply via email to