Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

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 o

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

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 years - most researchers consider it more than t

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

Jason, do you really consider YOUR (= ours, as of humans of today) capability of any 'ordering' - according to what WE find orderable - the ONLY possible 'ordering' that be? To include the word 'disorder' makes no difference. Noise? anything not fitting into what we can compute to fit into our

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/19/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > 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

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 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-comput

Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > 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 yo