Kim Jones wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
>> feelings=emotions.
>
> Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
> 'emotions':
>
>
> I have a ( ) my uranium shares might
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
> feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares might go up soon
I have a ( ) it might r
Kim Jones wrote:
> Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this
> list and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
>
>
>
> Why do we have emotions? Aren't simple, value-conferring feelings good
> enough or something? Emotions cause a host of extraordin
2008/10/24 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> JM:
> two contrasting reflections:
> 1. I do need the sci-fi for "material" that changes. Matter is a figment of
> conventional science upon the (mis)understood so called observations we
> assign to 'the world' and our partial information composes the
On 24/10/2008, at 2:43 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>> acting in a sense contrary to how you feel. Takes a bit of practice
>> but anybody can act.
>
> This is true, but this is mostly frontal lobe territory...suppressing
> dominant responses with an interest in long-term benefit. It's good
> that we
>
> Yes, but don't forget in saying this you have recognised that this is
> also our chief weapon against each other.
> Is it not rather ironic that we can call 'sociopath' someone who
> cannot 'fake it' emotionally to get his own way?
Ironically, most sociopaths are actually excellent at faking em
On 24/10/2008, at 1:56 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on
>> this list
>> and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
>
> I was going to intro myse
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this list
> and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
I was going to intro myself eventually but because this is interesting
to me, I wanted
JM:
two contrasting reflections:
1. I do need the sci-fi for "material" that changes. Matter is a figment of
conventional science upon the (mis)understood so called observations we
assign to 'the world' and our partial information composes the
'mini'solipsism (Colin H) we carry about 'reality' - e
2008/10/24 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stathis,
> Who told YOU (and the other honored discutants in this thread) that *THIS*
> ONE of our existence is the one-and-only basic/original appearance? We,
> here and now, may be #37 for you and #49 for me etc.,
> -- B U T --
> could you please
2008/10/24 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And in the case of a skewed probability distribution, I don't see why
> you wouldn't expect to end up in the most probable state (from the
> frog pov). Maybe I'm missing something?
In what way is the probability "skewed"? If I am copied to two
locatio
A friend told me about this today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7BHFieatVE
"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives is a BAFTA winning television
documentary broadcast in 2007 on BBC Scotland and BBC Four television
documentary in which American rock musician Mark Oliver Everett talks
to physicists an
I would say time doesn't go forward it is only a subjective illusion that it
moves forward because whatever observer moment you find yourself
experiencing only has memories of past events. Therefore a conscious
observer about to be injected with a poison will forever exist in that
moment, just as
OK, sorry, upon re-reading it seems that you're asking whether diverged
branches of consciousness can reconverge, and what that implies.
I'd say that since consciousness is rather 'forgetful', vague and
high-level, there's an awful lot of scope for this. However, once
reconverged there's no distin
I don't think I follow you. This is the exact feeling I get when I try to
read Pynchon...
OK, I think what you're saying is that when it comes to reconstructing the
body with only knowledge of the mind itself, much of the exact physical
characteristics are ambiguous, in that they don't contribute
Stathis,
Who told YOU (and the other honored discutants in this thread) that *THIS*
ONE of our existence is the one-and-only basic/original appearance? We,
here and now, may be #37 for you and #49 for me etc.,
-- B U T --
could you please tell me if 'anyone' of this nightmare-topic remembers, o
> The problem you raise is one of personal identity, and can be
> illustrated without invoking QTI. If I am copied 100 times so that
> copy #1 has 1% of my present memories, copy #2 has 2% of my present
> memories, and so on to copy #100 which has 100% of my present
> memories, which copy should
On Oct 22, 2:34 pm, "Michael Rosefield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push'
> the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any
> situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out
18 matches
Mail list logo
