X-Message-Number: 25527 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:02:40 -0800 Subject: The Delusions of Richard??? From: <> Robert has accused me of (1) using non-standard terminology (what exists versus what happens), and (2) wishful thinking regarding the knowability of survival criteria. Of course I do not use the common terminology when I am trying to be precise. This is why in papers in mathematics or philosophy, you will see the authors clearly define the terms they use. There is too much slop in everyday language to permit its intrusion into rigorous discussions. People talk of the sun as resolving around the earth. They talk about things having a color (as opposed to reflecting that color and absorbing all others). And they refer to changes, such as waves, as existing, when in fact they do not. The common way of phrasing things, which is intuitive and short-hand, is often wrong. Therefore I have no qualms about breaking with common terminology when precision demands it. Regarding (2). My survival criteria is *necessary* and *sufficient*, under the known laws of physics (essentially under the assumption of strict materialism). You have to break with strict materialism in order to say it is unecessary (Mike Perry), or insufficient (some extremist who deny you survive sleep). This is because when we say a noun exists (such as a dog or an apple), we mean this hunk of matter over here possesses certain properties; when the hunk of matter stops possessing those properties, the noun does not exist anymore. It can be no other way, since noun objects do not exist, but are mere labels given to arrangements of existing things (atoms). Therefore, our qualia experiencer exists as long as our brain is arranged in such a manner that it constitutes a qualia experiencer. By qualia experiencer, I of course mean certain changes to it correlate with subjective experience. As I have said before, I think this is roughly equivalent to your 'overlap in time, space, and matter'. The exact boundary (how much you can be damaged and yet survive) is vague under both definitions, but under mine, the answer could theoretically be found. Best Regards, Richard B. R. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25527