On Oct 22, 2:34 pm, Michael Rosefield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 'push'
the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely scenario - any
situation where death is probable requires an improbable get-out clause.
The problem you raise is one of personal identity, and can be
illustrated without invoking QTI. If I am copied 100 times so that
copy #1 has 1% of my present memories, copy #2 has 2% of my present
memories, and so on to copy #100 which has 100% of my present
memories, which copy should I
Stathis,
Who told YOU (and the other honored discutants in this thread) that *THIS*
ONE of our existence is the one-and-only basic/original appearance? We,
here and now, may be #37 for you and #49 for me etc.,
-- B U T --
could you please tell me if 'anyone' of this nightmare-topic remembers,
I don't think I follow you. This is the exact feeling I get when I try to
read Pynchon...
OK, I think what you're saying is that when it comes to reconstructing the
body with only knowledge of the mind itself, much of the exact physical
characteristics are ambiguous, in that they don't contribute
I would say time doesn't go forward it is only a subjective illusion that it
moves forward because whatever observer moment you find yourself
experiencing only has memories of past events. Therefore a conscious
observer about to be injected with a poison will forever exist in that
moment, just as
A friend told me about this today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7BHFieatVE
Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives is a BAFTA winning television
documentary broadcast in 2007 on BBC Scotland and BBC Four television
documentary in which American rock musician Mark Oliver Everett talks
to physicists
2008/10/24 razihassan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And in the case of a skewed probability distribution, I don't see why
you wouldn't expect to end up in the most probable state (from the
frog pov). Maybe I'm missing something?
In what way is the probability skewed? If I am copied to two
locations A
2008/10/24 John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stathis,
Who told YOU (and the other honored discutants in this thread) that *THIS*
ONE of our existence is the one-and-only basic/original appearance? We,
here and now, may be #37 for you and #49 for me etc.,
-- B U T --
could you please tell me
JM:
two contrasting reflections:
1. I do need the sci-fi for material that changes. Matter is a figment of
conventional science upon the (mis)understood so called observations we
assign to 'the world' and our partial information composes the
'mini'solipsism (Colin H) we carry about 'reality' -
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this list
and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
I was going to intro myself eventually but because this is interesting
to me, I wanted to
On 24/10/2008, at 1:56 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kim Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on
this list
and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
I was going to intro myself
Yes, but don't forget in saying this you have recognised that this is
also our chief weapon against each other.
Is it not rather ironic that we can call 'sociopath' someone who
cannot 'fake it' emotionally to get his own way?
Ironically, most sociopaths are actually excellent at faking
On 24/10/2008, at 2:43 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
acting in a sense contrary to how you feel. Takes a bit of practice
but anybody can act.
This is true, but this is mostly frontal lobe territory...suppressing
dominant responses with an interest in long-term benefit. It's good
that we
have
2008/10/24 John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JM:
two contrasting reflections:
1. I do need the sci-fi for material that changes. Matter is a figment of
conventional science upon the (mis)understood so called observations we
assign to 'the world' and our partial information composes the
Kim Jones wrote:
Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this
list and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
Why do we have emotions? Aren't simple, value-conferring feelings good
enough or something? Emotions cause a host of extraordinary,
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares might go up soon
I have a ( ) it might
16 matches
Mail list logo
