tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post2548476387996578431..comments2018-10-20T03:28:50.245+11:00Comments on Cri de Coeur: The Cryogenic ParadoxPierz Newton-Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03543526839423103591noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-34857208716044764952011-11-19T00:16:23.421+11:002011-11-19T00:16:23.421+11:00I would like to invite you to review/comment/colla...I would like to invite you to review/comment/collaborate, on a screenplay that's in development.<br /><br />http://www.wakingupmovie.com/RhythmAnarchyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13283069230654641957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-11224471392514717222011-08-26T11:43:39.456+10:002011-08-26T11:43:39.456+10:00Thanks for that. It seems like astute criticism. I...Thanks for that. It seems like astute criticism. I was reading Walker with credulous open-mindedness (difficult to assume any other attitude when you aren't a mathematician and/or a physicist) until I got to one particular element of his theory relating to melanin in the brain, the purpose of which is unknown, and which Walker invokes as a mechanism to absorb radiation from the electrons he sees as "carrying" consciousness. Without the right amount of melanin, you'd be overwhelmed with a surfeit of thought. But then I thought: What about albinos?? Hmm, so much for that grand theory! But still definitely worth a read for the light it shines on QT, and especially Bell's Theorem, which you can actually grasp from his exposition if you take the time to read it VERY carefully.<br /><br />I've just been reading your Everything List thread about "non-computability" of 1-p from 3-p (to use your terms). Does my head in reading the counter-arguments of the epiphenomenalists! Seems to me the difference between you and me is that you sensibly wait until the morning to trouble yourself with these paradoxes, whereas I stupidly try to tackle them *before* sleep!Pierz Newton-Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543526839423103591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-37405636930384304962011-08-26T09:26:29.727+10:002011-08-26T09:26:29.727+10:00Pierz
You may be interested in Matthew Donald'...Pierz<br /><br />You may be interested in Matthew Donald's review of Evan Harris Walker's book (Donald is a leading "many minds" theorist):<br /><br />http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CEsQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheassc.org%2Ffiles%2Fassc%2F2493.pdf&ei=C9lWTrrUO4ab8QP3mJHEDA&usg=AFQjCNF7NSql-pSlTpMF-rU4tvjQcVFOdA&sig2=4lWDVjptyxlGy2UzN5Nttwdnn8350https://www.blogger.com/profile/13028876540733025341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-90296853467646190772011-08-23T05:02:23.122+10:002011-08-23T05:02:23.122+10:00Ah yes, the horror, the horror. And yet, if not &...Ah yes, the horror, the horror. And yet, if not "you", then who, or what? But to ask that is to propel you right back into the paradoxes that troubled your sleep. I am likewise unwilling to contemplate some of the logical consequences of this kind of speculation (I was rather relying on the ultimate freedom of oblivion as my portion after death), but that in itself doesn't rule it out as a possibility.<br /><br />There's a link on my blog (actually, the only link so far) to a long-standing and politely behaved discussion Google group called the Everything List on which there is frequent discussion from a variety of perspectives on this kind of topic, if the mood takes you.dnn8350https://www.blogger.com/profile/13028876540733025341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-51908462025769885312011-08-22T11:00:23.082+10:002011-08-22T11:00:23.082+10:00Thanks for the thoughts dnn. I actually just finis...Thanks for the thoughts dnn. I actually just finished reading a book called "The Physics of Consciousness" by Evan Harris Walker, which arrives at a very similar conclusion with regards to the "single observer" hypothesis. Walker uses the same idea to resolve the famous Schrödinger's cat problem. <br /><br />Walker also notes that Wittgenstein argues there is no place for the concept of "I" in objective language, and makes the very same point I have that this seems to reflect a failure of Western rational philosophy to deal with consciousness. The apparent nonsense of Zen utterances points to this boundary where rational discourse founders. <br /><br />I'm not sure about all of Walker's conclusions, but it's always comforting to find others thinking along the same lines. Personally I find the notion horrific of having to be every subject that is, was, or will be, and I'm not seriously arguing that - just that there must be a point at which consciousnesses converge. In this sense all "I"s must be unified.Pierz Newton-Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543526839423103591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814316106003515418.post-21911421205733014512011-08-21T00:34:01.872+10:002011-08-21T00:34:01.872+10:00Interesting blog. Your solution to the problem of...Interesting blog. Your solution to the problem of observation has many similarities (as I'm sure you're aware) to the basic position of "eastern" philosophies such as Buddhism. Indeed, similar assumptions about the equivalence of "observer moments" are (at least) implicit in many physical theories, such as the many-worlds and many minds formulations. The trouble is, as you imply, that if we take seriously the notion (as, I'm told, most physicists do) that all physical state of affairs are, in effect, co-existent (the "block universe") there seems to be no rationale for "me" to be "here, now", let alone for there to be any "passage" of time. Do we need to postulate, in addition to the "objective" existence of the physical situation, some singular random process of selection of subjective observer moments (i.e. each representing a "point of view" of the system as a whole), in effect creating a species of Nietzschean recurrence of such moments? Curiously, this would seem to imply a kind of "generalised" solipsism, in the sense that, from the perspective of any given "present moment", I am definitively the only observer who is "here, now". But of course since this is true for every such moment, I also know that at "other times" I am destined to occupy the observer positions of every "other self". As you imply, this seems a good basis for a morality based on universal empathy.dnn8350https://www.blogger.com/profile/13028876540733025341noreply@blogger.com