> At 11:39 16/12/96 -0600, Zaimoni wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
> >
> >> At 00:48 16/12/96 -0600, zaimoni (I'm sure I'll work out whether that's your
> >> full name, surname, or what, soon, but for now, excuse me) wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
>
> Now, I'm going to come out with it: Zaimoni-person... how do you want to be
> referred to?
Read the trailer on my email. I'm quoting myself.
In my fiction, "zaimoni" refers to one of the creators of the Iskandran
Badgers. Aside from killing all successful worshippers before the
worshipper can worship twice, they would pass off as Greek
gods/goddesses (poorly, too vexed by morality) in action.
> >[CLIP]
> >
> >> >2) I would phrase it as the freedom-consciousness inequalities.
> >>
> >> Ah! Why? Are we talking Venn diagram overlaps here? Sorry, you're talking to
> >> someone who's only been FORGETTING maths for the last 10 years I'm afraid.
> >
> >Yes, that's one context to interpret it in.
>
> Good... although I didn't even really understand THAT context... a lucky strike.
>
> >Actually, you don't seem to be forgetting it too fast; I'm interpreting
> >the inclusion relation as an underpowered "<". [It isn't always
> >defined, but it works properly otherwise....] The technical term
> >is "partially ordered set", or "poset".
>
> So... Big set = consciousness, subset = freedom? I was kind of aiming for
> freedom being EMPTY set.
Right on! I'm not conceding the empty set yet, but I have
subjectively/empirically verified that I can be conscious without
(superficial) free choice. Romans 7 also documents this impressively.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////