On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:24:51AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> OK.
> (and I think it follows from comp, but I would not insist on this,
> because we don't need this to understand that physics comes from the
> numbers, and it might be a too big novelty for many people, who
> seems very attached to their particular instantiations).

So you "think it", which means you don't have a proof. Nevertheless,
you do think there must be some strong indicators why a continuous
(well at least local changes only) conscious path exists between all
conscious states. What is that?

> It looks like the "God of the machines" is so cool, that you might
> have some choice to keep some particularist intermediate realities,
> before killing completely the "little ego". Something similar is
> described by Tibetan buddhist, although buddhists would emphasize
> usually the need to eventually liberate your higher self from any
> "little ego". We have the choice. Nothing urged. Shortcut exists,
> but no one enforces them.

Bhuddism is not COMP. I don't see why appealing to Bhuddist ideas
helps here. It's just another argument from authority.


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to