Re: on formally indescribable merde

2001-03-11 Thread Scott D. Yelich
Saey whaet?

Re: on formally indescribable merde

2001-03-12 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote: Scott: that was clearly ill-thought-out. Of course difference does not imply time, and of course this e-mail is not proof that there is a 'person' called James... Is this (just) a game to you? Scott

Re: on formally indescribable merde

2001-03-11 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote: Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is unrelated to 'my current' OM. But since all OMs exist I can be sure that there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'. You are James. Bruno is Bruno. Why

Re: Belief Knowledge

2001-05-02 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Brent Meeker wrote: A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it true. Knowledge is when predicted.

Acknowledgement

2000-05-10 Thread Scott D. Yelich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I'd like to post a quick followup to my own message to the list. Thank you Fred and Russell for your responses. I think the issues, for me, are these: (1) I am now subscribed twice, so I get all messages to the list twice -- and I receive three copies for

RE: this very moment

2000-05-03 Thread Scott D. Yelich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 3 May 2000, Higgo James wrote: 'Psychological time' is a concept of time, part of your current psychology. Occam would disapprove of assuming that psychological events are real events; assuming a hard, physical world when there is no need for one. I

Re: Leibniz Semantics

2001-03-27 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A v B A - B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Just to help you guys out, the notation used here puts the

Re: this very moment

2000-05-16 Thread Scott D. Yelich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jacques Mallah wrote: Another way to go is to consider an implementation of a computation, extended over time, as you. You can't tell which implementation you are just from the available information in an observer-moment. I

Proof/insistance of multiverse/plenitude?

2000-05-11 Thread Scott D. Yelich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- First, let me state that I am not a scientist that deals with this stuff -- so please forgive me if I seem naive or non-technical... but I have a question: Why are some people so adament about a plenitude or a multiverse ... what proof is there that is so

Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness

2001-02-10 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, James Higgo (co.uk) wrote: It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense - I thought time didn't exist? Scott

Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness

2001-02-10 Thread Scott D. Yelich
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, John Mikes wrote: Scott First: the past tense is objectionable unless the answer is negative (=Yes, it didn't). I don't approach my choice of and use of language by choosing words that are continuously defendable from a certain perspective. That is, I am not scientific