From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdat!swf Fri Oct 30 15:18:09 EST 1992
Article 7435 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdat!swf
>From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: We've Been Tricked- consciousness
Message-ID: <1341@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: 29 Oct 92 16:42:48 GMT
References: <BwqppI.IsM@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <Bwsqpo.8EE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Oct28.163845.122707@Cookie.secapl.com> <BwurqA.KI6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 21

In article <BwurqA.KI6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr) writes:
|
|Why do I have to resist the claim that the same being might sometimes
|meet criteria and other times not?  If I were, say, to sustain a
|stroke from an overload of philosophical debate, I could become
|subrational.  The same being, I, would at one time have been rational
|and at another subrational.  The same idea applies to "alive" and
|"taller than 6 feet."  I still see no problem with minima the meeting
|of which is either yes or no.
|
That is not what he was talking about.  He was talking about the situation
where taking the same measurement several times sequentially (or over a
short span, of at most a few hours) gets 'different' results.

The sorts of changes induced by a major upheaval are not relevant to the
fact of gradational properties. All that is involved is small-scale
adjustments, in both the measured entity and in the measurement process.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


