On 7/15/2012 2:34 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 7:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/14/2012 8:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/14/2012 9:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
No, the reverse is the case. The "belongs to an infinity of
computations making you singling out some stable patterns" requi
On 7/14/2012 8:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
And I need to add that not only is there a persistent "you", there is every possible
version of that persistent "you". If there is Identity via fixed point, then there is a
"you' involved in some capacity.
I wrote there was no unique, persistent
Brent (and Stephen): (while I could not 'locate' the relation "on pain of
circularity" - whether it is to explain , or ?) I
identify an *'observer'* ANY*THING* accepting - A N Y info/relation, while
*conscious(*ness) is generalized (IMO) to responding to such in ANY way.
I agree with NOT assuming
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>> The difference between names and numbers is that numbers can only be
>>> augmented in a linear fashion
>>>
>>
>> >> For all numbers x in set X let x=x^2
>>
>
> > That doesn't augment the variety of number types in set X,
>
It certainly au
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>If there is Identity via fixed point, then there is a "you' involved in
> some capacity. It just might not be belonging to an entity that some people
> denote as "John Clark"; it could be "Atom of Hydrogen". This rule applies
> to anything
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> > Could you tell us what you mean by "third parties" and "others"?
Second parties.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send ema
6 matches
Mail list logo
