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
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
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
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
[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'
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo