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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to