Jesse, nobody on this list is unaware of Carter's paper, to which I and
others have referred in several of our papers. The point is, life is a
high-level concept, not relevant to the more fundamental debate I thought we
were having. What was the point of Anthropic Reasoning 101?
> So my question
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness
> "James Higgo (co.uk)" wrote:
>
> >It's been almost two years you guys have been hun
It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense -
can't you conceive, for one moment, that there is no 'I'? Can you grasp the
indisputable fact that this debate is meaningless if there is no 'I', just
observer-moments without an 'observer'? Has anybody out there understo
Yes, it was meant for the list.
Bruno, you may remember that in the original question I specifically asked
you _not_ to give me that answer! But I must confess the fact that your
thesis is a) closely aregued and b) in French has meant I have not absorbed
it fully. Sorry my crack at translation pe
Bruno,
In conversations with friends, I am often asked why the minimal Kolmogorov
complexity of Tegmark's schema has any relevance to the physical world. Why
should information theory tell us anything about the 'real' world? What
grounds do we have to believe that the stuff of the 'physical' worl
Hello there everythingers. I submit for your
consideration a new poem, "A Monad's Manifesto":
Here I plant my national flag.This manifesto is
me.This idea is I: someoneLiving with that other,An illusion of a
reader.How risible it is to me:You think there is a you.A
structure in a real worl
6 matches
Mail list logo
