On 18 Sep, 00:31, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:17 pm, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Has it?  I thought we were discussing whether CTM made any meaningful
> > > commitments as a physical theory, not whether physics can or can't
> > > include consciousness per se.  Now you raise the question, I don't
> > > believe it can, simply because in common with virtually every other
> > > human attempt to characterise the world, its perspective is embedded
> > > in consciousness and hence can't envision it.
>
> > Unless consciousnes is just the very thing that envision itself.
>
> Just so.  But what is opaque is its relation to physics.

That opacity can''t be explained by some general law that nothing
can be self-referential or understand itself. It's all in the details.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to