Are you saying the sequence of observer moments is not needed? How can the
logical linkage Fritz mentioned below be manifested?
Higgo James wrote:
> Quite the contrary: there is no ordering mechanism. All observer moments
> that are remembered are real, because they do actually exist. It is sim
In a message dated 01/17/2000 4:58:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The RSSA is not another way of viewing the world; it is a
> category error.
I use the RSSA as the basis for calculating what I call the relative
probability, in this group the first person probability,
Hal and Marchal:
I guess the fundamental reason why I insist that the world is quantized is
because of the equivalence I make between
1) the universe of thoughts,
2) The universe of Turing simulation and
3) the physical universe.
In my opinion, this equivalence originates from the "rational
No I have not defined consciousness. I have merely postulated that
both Time and Projection are necessary to any such definition of
consciousness. As with any such postulates, they are neither correct nor
incorrect. They may be reasonable, or they may be unduly restrictive. Time
will tell. I will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: \/
> In my opinion, the RSSA is the conditional probability of you observing
> something happening given that you are alive to observe it. Thus is it a
> first person probability measure.
In that case, if by "is" you mean "gives results equal to", it
would
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Fritz Griffith wrote:
> what is it that links two observer moments? The answer: memory. ...
In a sense ...
> it is not necessary for any previous observer moments to exist
I think what you meant by that is that having memories does not
mean those memories
Hi everythingers,
I have been invited to make a talk at the 26th Dubrovnik
Philosophy of Science Conference.
I forward you Michel Ghins's information (with his kind
autorisation) because the topics are quite
relevant with our discussion.
I apologize for possible duplication of this message.
B
Selwyn St Leger wrote:
>I have been following your discussions with interest. Much of what
>you say was anticipated by Greg Egan in his sci fi novel "Permutation
>City". Or is "Greg Egan" the nom de plume of one of you?
Thanks for the reference. I will order it. Mmh... out of print say
Amazon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If the world was not quantized the comp hypothesis would not hold.
Only if my generalised brain is the entire universe.
Look at my discussion with Niklas Thisel. Comp entails
that, from the first person perspective some
universal feature of our observable neighborhood
Fritz Griffith wrote:
>>Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be is
>>this very idea.(James Higgo)
>
>That is a pretty vague statement, but it sounds like we are generally coming
>to the same conclusion. I would say that because all that needs to exist is
>a sing
I comment Hal's and Fritz's recent posts:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> There is a widespread confusion between two kind of idealism.
>>
>> 1) There is solipsism, sometimes called "subjective idealism". It is
>> (as James Higgo said) the doctrine that I am dr
Hal:
>Rational numbers are continuous, by the typical definition. Between
>any two rational numbers there is another (and therefore, an infinite
>number of others).
This is density. Q is dense indeed, but highly discontinuous.
Continuity means either that all dedekind-cut define numbers, or tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It seems to me there is objective connection between observer moments,
>based on the laws of physics and state evolution. If state B follows
>from state A by the time evolution described by a simple set of laws,
>it can be said to be linked to A.
>
>This approach says n
Hi,
I have been following your discussions with interest. Much of what
you say was anticipated by Greg Egan in his sci fi novel "Permutation
City". Or is "Greg Egan" the nom de plume of one of you?
Selwyn St Leger
Wasn't Liebnitz a genius with his monads? That's not far off what we're
saying here.
> -Original Message-
> From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 10:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> >From: [EMAI
Russell, you say: "come up with a convincing counterexample of how
consciousness could work in another way".
Firstly, you have not defined consciousness. Secondly, you have not defined
how it works your way (and nether have such dignitaries as Dennett).
Thirdly, I offer you a perfectly logical
Quite the contrary: there is no ordering mechanism. All observer moments
that are remembered are real, because they do actually exist. It is simply
that there is no causal relationship between the real OMand the remembered
one.
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Chen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTE
> Well, the more fundamental point is that there is no 'I'. Just and idea of
> an I.
>
> And we do not perceive any other observer moments. We just think we do.
> Having said that, the observer-moments we erroneously think we perceive
> actually do exist.
>
> James
> -Original Message-
You are putting forward a circular argument:
- A must follow B because law X says so
- X is a law because we always observe that A follows B
'Laws' are not an objective feature of reality.
James
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, Januar
19 matches
Mail list logo
