[extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain.

[Heartland]

>A B  (Jeffrey Herrlich) Wrote:
>
>> Hi Heartland,
>> Saying that you will die when you die doesn't really explain anything.

Clark:
> Yes, "you die when you die" really doesn't cut it, I had a similar problem
> with Heartland so he expanded on his answer and explained that the original
> is the original and the copy is the copy. In the post after that he told me
> that A is A and B is B. I still wasn't quite convinced he was right but then
> in yet another post said F is F and G is G, and suddenly it all clicked.


Hey, I'm doing my best. I have no control over how people interpret my answers or 
if they understand what I'm saying. If I had an hour of face time with someone who 
*thinks* he's got a good argument against mine I could probably convince him, 
assuming I would be dealing with a rational person.

I didn't say that "you die when you die." Why would you put your interpretation in 
quotes and imply that this is what I said? But you, Mr. Clark, haven't played fair 
from the beginning (insults, straw man after straw man) so why should you change 
your tactic now? I didn't expect anything else.

But, generally, I'm disappointed that I have to spell each detail of an idea to 
have any hope that an idea will be understood. What happened to taking a principle 
and extrapolating it to its logical conclusion? Instance is not a type. Activity is 
not information. Mind is not a brain. Would it be really so evil if I asked you or 
anyone else to think about these principles for a week, month or a year before 
challenging the conclusions that logically derive from these principles?

S.