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 Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:25:51PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
One response to this idea is that the non-computational worlds are overrun
with white rabbits, whereas the computational worlds allow the calculation
of a local measure, such as Russell Standish has described, which explains
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have not extracted the measure (nor do I think Russell did to be
honest), but I have extracted the logic of certainty (credibility one)
associated to each hypostasis, and those corresponding to Plotinus
Matter (or our measure
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
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without
benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that
non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, why
should
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
