Lee Corbin wrote:
Tom writes
The difference between a quark and a lepton can be described with
mathematics, even though perhaps it's harder to pin down than the
difference between 3 and 34. I think most of us wouldn't have a
crucial problem with that. But alas the difference between
Hal writes
What I argued was that it would be easier to find the trace of a person's
thoughts in a universe where he had a physically continuous record than
where there were discontinuities (easier in the sense that a smaller
program would suffice). In my framework, this means that the
Stephen writes
In my previous post I tried to point out that *existence* is not a
first-order (or n-th order) predicate and thus does nothing to distinguish
one Form, Number, Algorithm, or what-have-you from another.
[LC]
I don't know about that; I do know that 34 and 3 are not the
Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:35, Brent Meeker a écrit :
That's not contrary to my conception at all. I certainly do bet on
the existence of others, and
of chairs and tables and stars and electrons and myself, and all for
the essentially the same reasons.
OK.
I don't understand the
Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:54, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Sure it is. Just because something cannot be directly experienced
doesn't rule it out of a
scienctific model: quarks can't be observed, but their effects can.
OK, but we were discussing about theories. general relativity, as a
theory does
Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:59, James N Rose a écrit :
Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral
co-extancy.
The comp assumption leads to the less reductive possible account of the
person and person POVs.
For example, comp does not guaranties *any* survival, but it
Le 02-juil.-06, à 08:44, Tom Caylor a écrit :
My point is that of the thread title Only Existence is necessary?
Not that observers are necessary for existence, but that existence is
insufficient for meaning. I'm still holding out for Bruno to work the
rest of his diagonalization tricks to
Hello, Quentin:
we agree in spite of a different formulation:
death - I wrote about it as a process in a concept, while I feel you refer
to the 'death' of a 'person' or whatever, as a state.
The person (or whatever) is a complex entity of its (his?) interconnected
and self-reflective (yes, even
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
John M wrote:
...
Stathis wrote:
...
I agree. Other people are part of the model of the
world
Stathis wrote, Friday, June 30, 2006 12:24 AM
A book is the analogy that came to mind, but there is an
important difference between this and conscious experience.
Books, sentences, words may not need to be physically
collected together to make a coherent larger structure,
but they do need
Stathis also wrote in the same email, Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity
Brent wrote
That's why I suggest that OMs are not an adequate ontological basis for a
world model. On the other
hand, if we
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:54, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Sure it is. Just because something cannot be directly experienced
doesn't rule it out of a
scienctific model: quarks can't be observed, but their effects can.
OK, but we were discussing about theories. general
Lee Corbin wrote:
Stathis wrote, Friday, June 30, 2006 12:24 AM
A book is the analogy that came to mind, but there is an
important difference between this and conscious experience.
Books, sentences, words may not need to be physically
collected together to make a coherent larger structure,
Bruno,
I have found myself in this lifetime to be a staunch
OP-ponent and challenger to Godel's incompleteness
theorems.
In the way that they are structured - with the premises
Godel preset, of initial boundaries for what he was
about to design by 'proof' - his theorems are both
Large has a lot to do with old. Universes where conscious life arose
by a lengthy evolutionary process will have larger measure (by vitue
of simpler initial conditions) than do universes whose conscious life
arises spontaneously, or by relatively short evolutionary processes.
It is also
15 matches
Mail list logo
