RE: The Game of Life

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:04:05 -0000

All I'm saying is that you are assuming a mind when all you know is a
thought. There is no mind.
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 11:37 PM
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: The Game of Life
>
> In a message dated 01/10/2000 2:12:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> james.higgo.domain.name.hidden writes:
>
> >Hey, for once I sing from the same songbook as Jacques. After all these
> >years, Jacques. My apologies for ridiculing you in the past. George, the
> >word 'presumably' is a big one; and why do observer-moments (or thoughts,
> as
> >I call them) correspond to different mind-states? That'a another
> assumption.
> >James
>
>
> uh? I believe in Leibniz principle of indiscernable. If the mind states
> are
> identical then the observer-moments are all one and the same. To assume a
> single observer moment is the same as assuming a single thought. This is a
>
> pretty boring world.
>
> If we disagree on this one, then we have different thoughts which proves
> my
> point that there are many thoughts!
>
> > Thanks, George
> > I agree pretty muuch with what you say, George, but I deny that there
> is
> any
> > objective consciousness thread. Of course, you can choose to see one
> > subjectively by picking out observer moments and stringing them
> together,
> > subject to a rule you call rationality-X, but while that may amuse you
> it
> > won't achieve much.
> > James
>
> I also deny that there is objective consciousness. Consciousness is a
> first
> person phenomenon par excellence. It's the Self observing the Self.
>
> The "stringing together" of observer moments subject to
> 1) rationality-X constraint and to
> 2) the anthropic principle
> results in consciousness-X.
>
> Consciousness is a mirage observing itself.
>
> George
Received on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 01:05:04 PST