Jamie,
wise words, but no cigar here. For a RE-Evaluation I have insufficient
knowledge even in the E - to compare it into a RE-.
Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being just a
'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical fraction of the
totality within
Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but
I am of a like-mind to him.
What I have discerned, is an important insight
that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you
point out, make things mightily more complicated.
There is level of complication that has been with
us all the time, but which
It's getting such and sucher - the multiple, back-and-forth gets dizzying.
So I will copy certain sentences of the Stathistical discussion for
reflection.-Below is the orig.Maze.
John
---
JM earlier: What else can we 'imagine'? Ideational -- of whom? Mine?
Yours? I
John M, et al,
It is a fact of existential experiencing that
minds are typically so innured to their millieu
and environmental encounters that 'alternative
interpretations' are overlooked and missed to
appreciation and understanding.
--- When it became apparent to me that
QM -and-
On 3/31/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The non-standard part of Bruno's comp, as I see it, is to accept that
computation can lead to thought but to reject the physical supervenience
theory, i.e. that computation requires certain physical processes to
take place in order to happen.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM
*Subject:* Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SKIP - Sorry, Mark, this goes to Stathis, who wrote:
*-SP:
Standard
: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SKIP - Sorry, Mark, this goes to Stathis, who wrote:
*-SP:
Standard computationalism is just the theory that your brain could be
replaced with an appropriately configured digital computer and you would
Le 26-mars-07, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Standard computationalism is just the theory that your brain could be
replaced with an appropriately configured digital computer and you
would not only act the same, you would also feel the same. Bruno goes
on to show that this
On 3/28/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 26-mars-07, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Standard computationalism is just the theory that your brain could be
replaced with an appropriately configured digital computer and you
would not only act the same, you would also
Stathis:
let me keep only your reply-part and ask my question(s):
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL
Le 25-mars-07, à 15:13, Mark Peaty a écrit :
I hope you guys will forgive my irreverence, but in the last
couple of hours for the first time I have managed to read this
thread to here. Having done so, and in the spirit of this
everything-list wherein it is assumed everything is not only
I hope you guys will forgive my irreverence, but in the last
couple of hours for the first time I have managed to read this
thread to here. Having done so, and in the spirit of this
everything-list wherein it is assumed everything is not only
possible but _will_ happen and indeed may already
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope you guys will forgive my irreverence, but in the last
couple of hours for the first time I have managed to read this
thread to here. Having done so, and in the spirit of this
everything-list wherein it is assumed everything is not only
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. I'm talking about a sort of program/data division - which I
recognize is arbitrary in computer program - but I think may have an
analogue in brains. When I write a
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise) -
the term less static, rather process-wise:
We do (in whatever action)?
John M
That's part of what I'm struggling with. ISTM that OMs, being
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 17:46:32 Brent Meeker wrote:
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise) -
the term less static, rather process-wise:
We do (in whatever action)?
John M
On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise) -
the term less static, rather process-wise:
We do (in whatever action)?
John M
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise) -
On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M wrote:
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
to the alarm clock, or from unconsciousness. There are different 'levels' to be
included into that noumenon.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does
*Subject:* Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/20/07, *John M* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis:
it seems you apply some hard 'Occami\sation' to consckiousness:
as I see you consider it as 'being conscious - vs. unconscious
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
On 3/21/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unconscious factors affecting our sense of continuity of identity must
do it through affecting conscious factors.
That would follow if we were always conscious of our sense of continuity
of identity, but I don't think we are. I may think
-
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the order of your current observer moment.
Stathis Papaioannou
I see how my
sense as
well.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote
On 3/20/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis:
it seems you apply some hard 'Occami\sation' to consckiousness: as I see
you consider it as 'being conscious - vs. unconscious'. The physiological
(mediacal?) way.
In my experience from reading and intenrnet-discussing Ccness for over 15
On 3/18/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every conscious perspective within the UD could be said to have some
statistical measure in relation to other conscious perspectives.
Which is to say, some experiences occur with a greater frequency than
others. However, I am wondering if any useful
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/18/07, *Jason* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Every conscious perspective within the UD could be said to have some
statistical measure in relation to other conscious perspectives.
Which is to say, some experiences occur
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the order of your current observer moment.
Stathis Papaioannou
I see how my wording was confusing. What I meant by order was order
vs. disorder, e.g. we are experiencing a well structured observer
moment as opposed to white noise,
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in telepathic
communication with any other OMs, whether related to it or not. The
effect (or illusion) of continuity of consciousness is adequately
explained by each OM remembering
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in telepathic
communication with any other OMs, whether related to it or not. The
effect (or illusion) of
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in
telepathic
communication with any other OMs, whether
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are OMs which don't
remember being you then they are not going to be part of your stream of
consciousness.
There's the rub. Almost all my OMs *do not* include consciously
remembering being me (or anyone). And if you suppose
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are OMs which don't
remember being you then they are not going to be part of your
stream of
consciousness.
There's the rub. Almost all my
37 matches
Mail list logo
