On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:41 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> The important point for this argument is that we would have no way of
>> knowing if Last Tuesdayism is true, and this shows that the OM's can be
>> sequenced implicitly from their content.
> Only if their content is sufficiently comprehesive.  If OM=digital
> computation state,  then it will be sufficient.  BUT that's my whole
> objection to line this discussion.  Nobody ever defines OM that way.  They
> want an OM to correspond to a "thought" of "an elementary experience".

It doesn't matter if the content of a thought is insufficient to
sequence it precisely from a third person perspective, since it will
be sequenced *precisely enough* from a first person perspective. I
think this is our point of misunderstanding: you seem to be talking
about objective sequencing, whereas I am talking about subjective
sequencing. If I have a moment where I'm so vague that I lack
awareness of time, person and place then ipso facto there is no
possibility of subjectively sequencing that moment, regardless of how
it was generated. If I have a moment where I reflect on who, where and
when I am, what I did yesterday, what I will do tomorrow, then ipso
facto that moment is subjectively sequenced regardless of how it was

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to