On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> >>> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
