On 28 Jan 2010, at 20:27, RMahoney wrote:
On Jan 8, 12:38 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Welcome RMahoney,
Nice thought experiments. But they need amnesia (like in going from
you to Cruise). I tend to think like you that it may be the case that
we are the same person (like those
On Jan 8, 12:38 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Welcome RMahoney,
Nice thought experiments. But they need amnesia (like in going from
you to Cruise). I tend to think like you that it may be the case that
we are the same person (like those who result from a self-
duplication,
Welcome RMahoney,
Nice thought experiments. But they need amnesia (like in going from
you to Cruise). I tend to think like you that it may be the case that
we are the same person (like those who result from a self-
duplication, both refer as being the same person as the original, yet
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 07:38:21PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And the universal machine is well placed, by Church thesis, to play the
role of the main heroin. I think.
Could be a Freudian slip - do you mean heroine here, as opposed to
heroin the drug?
--
pretty cool thread (read most but skimmed thru some of it though).
I've spent the past 35 or so years (i'm now 56) pondering the subject
of why I am I and doing thought experiment after thought experiment
with cloning, copies, changing I one particle at a time until I am
you or someone else, and
pretty cool thread (read most but skimmed thru some of it though).
I've spent the past 35 or so years (i'm now 56) pondering the subject
of why I am I and doing thought experiment after thought experiment
with cloning, copies, changing I one particle at a time until I am
you or someone else, and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:07, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
They are. Numbers are primitive. The variable x and y represents
excusively those numbers. Finite pieces of computation are speical
numbers, like prime numbers. To be a (finite piece of a)
On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:07, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
They are. Numbers are primitive. The variable x and y represents
excusively those numbers. Finite pieces of computation are speical
numbers, like prime numbers. To be a (finite piece of a) computation
is a property of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The theory
explains what exists, and how the rest emerges from it.
But then doesn't the rest exist, too? I just see a problem with
claiming
to explain what exists, when it is really not clear what existance
could
On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have never claim it explains something fundamental, it explains a
new problem, the problem of justifying how machine dreams glue
enough to stabilize first person plural sharable observation.
The theory
explains what exists,
I willl not reply to all parts of your post in detail, because I think we
mainly discuss semantics on some specific issues. I feel we agree on most
things either way, it seems pointless to get
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It's like a
theory saying: There is something, but don't aks me what it
On 19 Dec 2009, at 16:13, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you
already
presume the appearance of matter,
I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality.
If not, I would not post message on a list.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you
already
presume the appearance of matter,
I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality.
If not, I would not post message on a list.
Well, that was my point. So indeed
But since practically anything can represent nearly anything else,
it's ultimately all in the mind of the beholder.
The representation must account for the observation.
Hmmm? I'm not sure what you're saying here. How would the
representation account for the observation? Do you mean that
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Dec 2009, at 20:51, Rex Allen wrote:
We see evolution...but it only
exists in our minds, as a tool for our understanding. It's not
something that exists in the world. Again, taking the physicalist
view.
We see
On 12 Dec 2009, at 19:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some real (in the sense
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Though in another way I think we already have a theory of everything a
theory can explain *ultimately* (which is *not even remotely* close to
everything, since the more you trascend a theory the bigger the
On 13 Dec 2009, at 16:40, Rex Allen wrote:
I diagnostic you have still some some trouble grasping completely the
7th and 8th step of UDA, to be frank. It is OK, take it easy.
Well, I think I grasp those points. I just don't think that they show
that they are the source of conscious
On 13 Dec 2009, at 18:20, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Though in another way I think we already have a theory of
everything a
theory can explain *ultimately* (which is *not even remotely*
close to
everything,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
I'm thinking of something
similar to the symbol grounding problem:
The Symbol Grounding Problem is related to the problem of how words
(symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some real (in the sense of every day usage) object.
Then
On 11 Dec 2009, at 02:40, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But if numbers can just exist, and matter can just exist, then
why
can't conscious experiences just exist?
Numbers can just exist, and this is the last
On 09 Dec 2009, at 20:51, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Dec 2009, at 09:50, Rex Allen wrote:
In such a reality, things just are what they are. If you find
some
explanations good and others bad, that's just the
On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some real (in the sense of every day usage) object.
Then all physical theories are
On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote:
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some real (in the sense of every day usage) object.
So I find it unconvincing that
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But if numbers can just exist, and matter can just exist, then why
can't conscious experiences just exist?
Numbers can just exist, and this is the last unsolvable mystery. Yet
we can explain (assuming comp) why
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
benjayk wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
Where could the explanation begin?
I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
said...it's descriptions all the way down.
I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Dec 2009, at 09:50, Rex Allen wrote:
In such a reality, things just are what they are. If you find some
explanations good and others bad, that's just the epiphenominal
residue of more fundamental physical processes
Rex Allen wrote:
Where could the explanation begin?
I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
said...it's descriptions all the way down.
I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal
explanation. In a sense our life and our experiences
benjayk wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
Where could the explanation begin?
I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
said...it's descriptions all the way down.
I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal
explanation. In a sense
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
What defines upwards and downwards. Why would downwards
causation make any difference?
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
What defines upwards and downwards. Why would
On 08 Dec 2009, at 09:50, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
So my point is that: in a reductionist theory which implies a
physicalist reality with no downwards causation,
What defines upwards and downwards.
On 06 Dec 2009, at 05:07, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is actually an art to find the dosage and the timing so that you
understand better some, well, let us say statements you get there.
One
is just impossible to memorize, or you stay there, and a copy is send
here. This is
On 06 Dec 2009, at 05:21, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
All of this indicates that salvinorin A has potent but short-lived
effects on the brain systems involved in memory, identity, body
image
and perception of time and
Are you physicalist?
I just don't know.
All my everyday experience points towards physicalism: I'm a brain,
embodied in a physical body, embedded in a physical environment and
evolved via several billion year selection process. All the
constituents of my mind could be explained in the
Dear Bruno,
on diverse lists (I cannot call them 'science-branches' since lately most
domains are discussed in considering aspects of several of such on the
diverse discussion-lists)-
CONCEPTS (I wish I knew a better word) appear by different content.
If somebody has the time and feels like
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
Are you physicalist?
I just don't know.
All my everyday experience points towards physicalism: I'm a brain,
embodied in a physical body, embedded in a physical environment and
evolved via several billion year
Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (-)s and the unmarked text. No
signature.
I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it pertains to
the last par.-s.
John M
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent
Bruno Marchal wrote:
And what do you mean by stay there? Forever? Why should you stay
there
(can you choose)? And where is there? Is it forgetfulness oder
remembrance?
It is very difficult to describe any first person experience. We
cannot even describe normal state of
I mark my small part below with brackets [ ].
John Mikes wrote:
Rex, or Brent? (I am mixed up between th (-)s and the unmarked
text. No signature.
I rather paste my cpmment to the end of this posting, since it
pertains to the last par.-s.
John M
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Rex Allen
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What is your alternative to the everything universal acid? That
things just are the way they are
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What is your alternative to the everything universal
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You seem to be reading a lot into my post.
Ha! Ya, once I got going I figured I'd just throw everything in there
and see if any of it elicited any interesting feedback.
I never said that
consciousness is an
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You seem to be reading a lot into my post.
Ha! Ya, once I got going I figured I'd just throw everything in there
and see if any of it elicited any interesting feedback.
I admire this list.
Somebody asks a silly question and 'we' write hourlong wisdom(s) upon it.
After my deep liking of Stathis's what difference does it make? (or
something to that meaning) -
my question went a step deeped:
*for: How do I know I am I? - (rather:* How (Why?) do I think I am I?)
I
From: John Mikes [mailto:jami...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why I am I?
I admire this list.
Somebody asks a silly question and 'we' write hourlong wisdom(s) upon it.
After my deep liking of Stathis's what
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What is your alternative to the everything universal acid? That
things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's ultimately no
explanation for that. Right?
Exactly so. It's just happened
On 05 Dec 2009, at 21:00, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What is your alternative to the everything universal acid? That
things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's
ultimately no
explanation
Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What is your alternative to the everything universal acid? That
things just are the way they are (uniquely), and there's ultimately no
explanation for that. Right?
On 04 Dec 2009, at 20:47, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I thought it was impossible to live that and to be able to come
back from
such an experience, but it happens that with salvia divinorum,
some subject
can
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is actually an art to find the dosage and the timing so that you
understand better some, well, let us say statements you get there. One
is just impossible to memorize, or you stay there, and a copy is send
here. This is a copy effect experimented by a
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
All of this indicates that salvinorin A has potent but short-lived
effects on the brain systems involved in memory, identity, body image
and perception of time and space (along with a host of other effects
not discussed
On 03 Dec 2009, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
Exactly. It is the magical I that is swapped.
That I is magical. It is like swapping both the mind (or 1-I) and
the body (or 3-I).
Eventually this is the reason why absolute sample of the observer
moment does not work, and we need relative
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Dec 2009, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
Exactly. It is the magical "I" that is swapped.
That "I" is magical. It is like swapping both the mind (or
1-I) and the body
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I thought it was impossible to live that and to be able to come back from
such an experience, but it happens that with salvia divinorum, some subject
can live the experience of quasi-total amnesia, where not only you
On 04 Dec 2009, at 19:15, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Those thought experiences are not needed to understand that the
physical reality and physical sensations emerge from numbers
addition and multiplication, for example, but may be useful to
tackle the identity problem
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2009, at 19:15, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Those thought experiences are not needed to understand that the
physical reality and physical sensations emerge from numbers
addition and multiplication, for example, but may be useful to
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2009, at 19:15, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Those thought experiences are not needed to understand that the
physical reality and physical sensations emerge from numbers
On 02 Dec 2009, at 14:16, soulcatcher☠ wrote:
Hi all,
every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't
help asking the more general question:
Why I am I, not somebody else?
Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born
in _this_ year, etc?
This
x This raises the question of how many first person exists. I like the idea
that the answer is one. We may be all the universal person appearing and
reappearing like if we were already duplicated many times, which makes sense
given that we come from the same amoeba. We are like a god who lost
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that make
to anything?
That would make a huge difference for me and Elvis - my (and his)
subjective
Apparently it did not work. I am bruno marchal now!
Please swish again!
:)
No! I am Bruno Marchal! Pliz get me out of here :)
Do you see the problem in the above exchange? It assumes there is some
metaphysical me and you that can be conceptualised as flitting
about from one body and mind
On 03 Dec 2009, at 12:12, soulcatcher☠ wrote:
x This raises the question of how many first person exists. I like
the idea
that the answer is one. We may be all the universal person
appearing and
reappearing like if we were already duplicated many times, which
makes sense
given that
soulcatcher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi soulcatcher,
Good question, it is something I thought about too, then I realized I am me
because it was this brain in my skull asking that question. I created the
attached image to help
soulcatcher wrote:
Lets consider two "hard" questions - "why do we live in THIS
universe?" (1) and "why am I me?" (2).
(1) . Why do we live in THIS universe?
Here we got:
- string theory and anthropic reasoning present us with a landscape of
10^(10^N) universes that we can choose
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that make
to anything?
That would
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Science advances in small steps that often depend on technology. I think
the next 'hard' question that has some chance of being answered is, what
information processes are necessary and sufficient to produce
Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Science advances in small steps that often depend on technology. I think
the next 'hard' question that has some chance of being answered is, what
information processes are necessary and sufficient
On 03 Dec 2009, at 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that
make
to anything?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Dec 2009, at 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If
2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't
help asking the more general question:
Why I am I, not somebody else?
Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born
in _this_ year, etc?
This
soulcatcher-2 wrote:
Hi all,
every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't
help asking the more general question:
Why I am I, not somebody else?
Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born
in _this_ year, etc?
This question seems to me of
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi soulcatcher,
Good question, it is something I thought about too, then I realized I am me
because it was this brain in my skull asking that question. I created the
attached image to help illustrate my point. If each
74 matches
Mail list logo
