On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 February 2014 12:36, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Identity isn't self contained in MSR. All identity is leased within some
perspective. The more common the perspective, the longer the lease, and
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which move them? The neurological
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:38:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:31, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus
don't need to obey to Leibniz identity rule.
I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that there is some
modal notion that makes
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM
ultimately relies on some transcendent notion of perspective
On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
0 doesn't = 0 in my theory.
I was beginning suspecting this.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:52:41 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
0 doesn't = 0 in my theory.
Identity isn't self contained in MSR. All identity is leased within some
perspective. The more common the perspective, the longer the lease,
On 28 February 2014 12:36, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Identity isn't self contained in MSR. All identity is leased within some
perspective. The more common the perspective, the longer the lease, and the
more 'seems like' or 'has a similar quality' appears stabilized as 'is
On 23 Feb 2014, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 09:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately
relies on some transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the
sensible world is conceived as the resultant of the inter-
subjective
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:57, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:07:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb
On 24 Feb 2014, at 04:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 18:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus don't need to obey to
Leibniz identity rule.
I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that there is some modal notion that makes
identity of indiscernibles wrong? I think of
On 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies on some
transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological changes
which move them? The neurological change is the expression of what you
actually are. These primitive levels of sense are beyond the question of
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which move them? The neurological change is the expression of what
On 24 February 2014 16:31, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you turn your desire to move your hand into the neurological
changes which
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:32:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 02:43, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
How
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Turning the tables on the doctor
I wouldn't ride in the damn thing! -- Larry Niven, The theory
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is
On 23 February 2014 04:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the
continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is
what is observed).
On 23 February 2014 09:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that
On 23 February 2014 03:12, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22
On 22 Feb 2014, at 18:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
Not at all. Your 1p-originality is
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies on some
transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as the
resultant of the inter-subjective agreement of its possible observers, each of which
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:07:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net
javascript:wrote:
On
On 23 February 2014 19:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies
on some transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the sensible world
is conceived as the resultant of the
On 23 February 2014 19:04, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
After all, the standard objection to starting from the putative
universality of consciousness is why does it appear that so much of the
world of appearance is *unconscious*?
That is the only criticism that I have come
On 2/23/2014 2:45 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies
on some
transcendent notion of
On 24 February 2014 00:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The point I was getting at was whether you're supposing there are
*insensible^ parts to the world, which we may infer from the sensible part
or from mathematics?
In short, yes.
David
--
You received this message because you
On 2/23/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
But it raises the question, given complete amnesia and then growing up with
different experiences and memories in what sense could you be the same
person. I
John Clark and Bruno's back and forth, the one thing they always agree on
is that as
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:51:21 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
After all, the standard objection to starting from the putative
universality of consciousness is why does it appear that so much of the
On 24 February 2014 15:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:
But it raises the question, given complete amnesia and then growing up
with different experiences and memories in what sense could you be the same
person. I John Clark and Bruno's back and
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 18:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion and simulation is absolute. Arithmetic can do so many things, but
it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as
not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion
Not an illusion, an invariant.
and simulation is absolute.
Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of
substitution).
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
Not an illusion, an invariant.
If it is invariant then it
On 22 Feb 2014, at 02:39, David Nyman wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
Ha ha! I love when he shows the identity cards!
Note that this is among the thought experiences that I call
forbidden on this list, some years ago.
They are shortcuts, and can also provide arguments
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
Not at all. Your 1p-originality is preserved all the time.
I'm not thinking of 1p
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an
illusion
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly
entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible
world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the
continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e.
On 23 Feb 2014, at 06:21, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent
to the
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote:
No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of
consciousness is
directly entailed by CTM. In fact
I wouldn't ride in the damn thing! -- Larry Niven, The theory and
practice of teleportation (from memory, I may not have got that quote 100%
right)
On 22 February 2014 14:39, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
--
You received this message
51 matches
Mail list logo
