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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
