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>
>>>> What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
>>>> strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
>>> 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
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at