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
generated.


-- 
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 
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