Re: quick question

Jacques M Mallah, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, asks: > Is there anyone here who believes the everything hypothesis, yet > did *not* discover his own version independently before hearing about > Tegmark? I had conceived of the quantum suicide idea back in college in the 1970s, but I did not come up

Re: Fwd: COUNTERFACTUALS

This reply is a little stale, but here goes anyway: Marchal wrote: > > George Levy wrote: > > >In a message dated 99-06-30 11:20:07 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > ><< Precisely: Maudlin and me have proved that: > > > > NOT compORNOT sup-phys > > > > i.e. computati

Re: implementations

OK Jacques (M Mallah). I will try to make my point clearer. I appreciate your implementation concern. If you were not so much unclear on the immortality issue I would guess that "our" computationnalism are very close... You have still not found an error in may PE-omega argument for comp-immorta

Know your mind

Bruno, Hans I'm not sure why someone else's knowledge of a system has any bearing on it's subjective experience. If it does, then anyone who believes in God (omniscient) is, by this definition, not capable of subjective experience in their own view. Minds are piles of components; why does it mat