From: Mike Dougherty (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2008 - 18:52:38 MDT
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 12/03/2008, Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > lightyear 10,000,000 parsecs away. Again, I just don't think that
> > all those patches of dust constitute consciousness (no information
> > flow, no time involved). A perfectly consistent position for a
> > time chauvinist like me.
> Yes, it comes back to the same thing. I know I'm in a minority, but I
> don't see a problem with assuming that consciousness can happen with a
> succession of frozen states. The two reasons you give in your article for
> rejecting a conscious SFS are (a) that it's obviously absurd, and (b) that
> it doesn't result in information flow between the states. But I don't think
> it's obviously absurd, and I see the lack of information flow (or inability
> to handle counterfactuals) as just making it impossible for us as external
> observers to use the system for computation.
How much energy is in the particles of water that carry a wave? I'm not
talking about chemical or atomic energy, I mean the energy that High School
physics teaches in wave theory and simple harmonic motion. The individual
particles are the points of space-time corresponding to entries in the
GLUT. The wave that travels through them may be superimposed with many
others. The result? I guess the answer is that it depends on how you
define the terms.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:01:27 MDT