Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread marc . geddes
Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:44:38AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell, I like your position - but am still at a loss of a generally agreed-upon description of consciousness - applied in the lit as all variations of an unidentified thing anyone needs to his

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:41:37AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My dear fellow, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness IS a second time dimension. The 'Block-universe' view of time (B-Theory) and the 'Flowing River' view of time (A-Theory) can both be partially right *if* we

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread marc . geddes
Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:41:37AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My dear fellow, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness IS a second time dimension. The 'Block-universe' view of time (B-Theory) and the 'Flowing River' view of time (A-Theory) can both

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:40:40AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the anthropic reasoning stuff is bunk in my opinion. It's based on the faulty idea that one can reason about consciousness by equating observer moments with parts of the block universe. But as I suggest above, you

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread 1Z
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:41:37AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My dear fellow, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness IS a second time dimension. The 'Block-universe' view of time (B-Theory) and the 'Flowing River'

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-12 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 11, 7:14 am, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the Cartesian theater fof the edification of the observer.No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-) Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi incommunicable) and we certainly don't know how to.So if I see a square, I can't communicate it? You know you can, of course. But what you are communicating is

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: On Oct 11, 11:17 pm, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi incommunicable) and we certainly don't know how to.So if I see a square, I can't communicate it? You know you can, of course. But what

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-12 Thread David Nyman
On Oct 13, 1:52 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know you can, of course. But what you are communicating is information derived from your 'seeing a square' in order for others to instantiate something analogous, as 1-person experiences of their own.I disagree. Squareness is fully

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread marc . geddes
Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:40:40AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the anthropic reasoning stuff is bunk in my opinion. It's based on the faulty idea that one can reason about consciousness by equating observer moments with parts of the block universe. But

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread marc . geddes
1Z wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The key point I think is that both the A-theorists and the B-theorists are partially right. The B-series is easily compatible with the A-series. The point about a block universe is that there is no A-series, not that there is a B-series. This

Re: Maudlin's argument

2006-10-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:38:13AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:40:40AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the anthropic reasoning stuff is bunk in my opinion. It's based on the faulty idea that one can reason about