On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does "locally" mean in this context?  I doubt that consciousness is
>>>> strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
>>> counter-example to the claim that consciousness requires a world to
>>> interact with...?
>>>
>>
>> Do you think you could have dreams if you had never interacted with the
>> world?
>
>
> There are evidences (REM) that mammal fetus does dream.
> Do you agree that DM implies that possibility.
> In practice most of our consciousness grounding heavily relies on the most
> probable worlds arising from long deep (linear) computations. Apes fetus can
> dream climbing trees but they do that with ancestors climbing the most
> probable trees of their most probable neighborhoods since a long period.
> With classical mechanism, I would say, that to know is to believe p when
> "luckily" p is true, and to be awaken is to be dreaming of a world when
> "luckily" the world is real. But real means here first person sharable, and
> may result from its stability on random oracles.

I agree with you that being correct is a matter of luck.  But isn't
this true of every metaphysical option, not just classical mechanism?

-- 
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