On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:12:34 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:22:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> That's what you suspect, but in order for you to be correct there >>>>> must >>>>> >> be a mysterious non-physical entity that cannot be duplicated, even >>>>> >> with advanced scientific methods. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Not at all. All that is required for me to be correct is that >>>>> experience not >>>>> > be 100% repeatable, which, because an experience cannot ultimately >>>>> be >>>>> > limited to anything except everything in the entire universe, is >>>>> > automatically true on that level. For me to be incorrect there would >>>>> have to >>>>> > be a mysterious non-physical entity which separates any particular >>>>> event >>>>> > from eternity. >>>>> >>>>> If an experience is not 100% repeatable by repeating the presumed >>>>> physical basis underlying it, then you are saying that there is >>>>> something other than a physical basis to the experience. This >>>>> something else is the mysterious non-physical entity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something >>>> repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was >>>> writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on >>>> in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back >>>> yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been >>>> repeated 100%. >>>> >>> >>> Do you have any theory that explains sensation? >>> >> >> Explanation is already a type of sensation. We use explanation to make >> cognitive sense of sensations of other types or of other conceptual >> sensations (thoughts). >> >> >> In other words, you are saying there can be no explanation? >> > > Yes, but because sense is already 'planation' itself. You are trying to > weigh weight itself, so I am saying there can be no weight of weight > itself, just as there is no value of value or size of size. > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> Does an infinite amount of information go into producing your >>> conscious experience over some finite period of time? >>> >> >> Information is not physically real. Formations are representations which >> inform our sensitivity. Our conscious experience is not produced, it is >> presented. >> >> >> Well are there an infinite or finite number of formations in that >> presentation? >> > > There may be loosely finite ranges of experiences someone can have as that > person, as a person in general, as an animal, organism, part of Earth, > body, etc but it is self-diagonalizing so probably infinite overall. Until > people invented rockets, seeing the Earth from space wasn't within the > range of possible experiences. Now the possible experiences of everyone on > Earth include seeing pictures from the surface of Mars, or Hubble pictures > of a fantastic number of places. > Would you agree that there is a digital audio quality high enough that no human can distinguish it from the original analog one, and that there is a visual resolution and number of colors per pixel high enough that no human could distinguish the display from an actual scene? If so, there is a large but finite number of 1 minute songs that can be experienced by a human, and there is large but finite number of images a person can see. Therefore, in a universe that is infinite there is bound to be replication of the same experiences. This may not "duplicate" an experience, which some have argued is a but it does mean there can be multiple instances of the same experience. Arnold Zuboff writes: "Let us compare the logic of experience to the logic of something like a novel. A novel might be called a 'detailed type', of which there are 'tokens', which are its copies. For example, on a shelf in a bookshop there might be two copies of but a single novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Just as this would be only one novel, this would also constitute no multiplication of the character called Huckleberry Finn, despite there being two copies of his adventures on the shelf. The logic of a copy is different from that of a novel. If one of these copies was destroyed, the novel would continue to exist in the shop so long as there was at least one copy there. The novel has the logic of an Aristotelian universal. There must be at least one instance for it to exist, but repeated instances cannot multiply the number of universals." Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
