Re: Pareto laws and expected income

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:01:16 +1000

The alternative is that consciousness is a continuous property (or at
least finely divided miltivalued), argued by people like Susan
Greenfield. This doesn't seem right to me. For one thing, this is not
how the term is used in everyday language - you are either conscious
or unconscious. I haven't seen one whisk of evidence that this naive
folk approach has got it wrong.

Cheers

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 07:15:59PM -0700, Jonathan Colvin wrote:
>
> Likely because there *is* no dividing line. Why would you think that
> consciousness / observerness is a two state property?
>
> Jonathan Colvin

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wed Jun 22 2005 - 22:37:12 PDT