From: John Mikes [mailto:jami...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why I am I?

 

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


All. . .

Good quote on "hourlong wisdoms."  But it's also starting to look like a
lead-in to a documentary on pop songs with a philosophic bent.  The "who am
I" thing probably applies to a good number of teen songs today, and to a few
of them back in the 70's.  Matter of fact, there seems to be a 30-40-year
cycle to "who am I?" and philosophycentered songs, with a few of them
turning up in the thirties.  "What a difference a day makes," "night and
day", "Days of Future Passed," etc. and etc.

 

No WONDER John joined the choir.  Heh.

 

R. Miller

 

 


 

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
<mailto: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.

--

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