Your statement, 'without consciousness you can't incorporate the anthropic principle into your fundamental theory', is wrong. You can, it's just that you look for conditions that would support this observer-moment (a 'self-referential thought'), rather than conditions that support some physical object like a brain.
In your last paragraph you seem to concede that s single observer-moment can be 'conscious' and stand-alone. What need is there for this extra word, 'conscious'? What does it add to 'observer-moment'? James ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness > "James Higgo (co.uk)" wrote: > > >It's been almost two years you guys have been hung up on this 'I' nonsense > >- > >can't you conceive, for one moment, that there is no 'I'? Can you grasp the > >indisputable fact that this debate is meaningless if there is no 'I', just > >observer-moments without an 'observer'? Has anybody out there understood > >this point? > > How does it make sense to talk about "observer-moments" if you don't believe > in consciousness? Those who don't believe in consciousness at all should > really just talk about the probability of various physical configurations, > computations, or something similar. But without consciousness you can't > incorporate the anthropic principle into your fundamental theory--no reason > to say some patterns/computations can be "experienced" while others can't. > > However, for those who do believe in consciousness, it is still possible to > disbelieve in *continuity* of consciousness--there could just be a lot of > separate observer-moments that don't "become" anything different from what > they already are (so there'd be no point in asking which copy I'd become in > a replication experiment). > > Jesse Mazer > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > >
