On 06 Aug 2011, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/6/2011 1:25 PM, John Mikes wrote:

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 8/6/2011 8:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:

let me barge in with one fundamental - not dispersing my reply into those (many and long) details:

As I read your comments/replies (and I agree with your position within the limits I want to expose here), I have the feeling that you agree with the rest of the combatants in considering 'the brain', our idea about 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' as complete and total. I argue that it is not. Upon historic reminiscence all such inventory about these (and many more) concepts has been growing by addition and by phasing out imaginary 'content' as we 'learn', - an ongoing process that does not seem to have reached the ultimate end/completion.

So you are right in considering whatever we new yesterday (my substitution for today) but not including what we may know tomorrow. Drawing conclusions upon incomplete inventory does not seem acceptable.

John Mikes

If we wait until we know everything, we'll never draw any conclusion; which is OK for science. But for engineering we need to make decisions.


Brent: this is fine, we just should not mix up engineering with science: "My" science is the agnostic decision that we CANNOT know everything and feel comfortably in it. Also in my past engineering I made decisions but never pretended them to be scientific results.
Thanks for the remark


That's why I sometimes return to my engineering viewpoint. It is easy to speculate that some overarching "everything" construct includes us and our world as an infinitesimal part.

I suspect a confusion with tegmark's kind of mathematicalism. Comp gives us (us = the UMs and LUMs) the big role in the emergence of physics; not an infinitesimal role at all.

That may satisfy some religious need for "explanation"; but it doesn't help answer any engineering questions - such as "How do I make an intelligent Mars Rover? And if I do will it be conscious? And if it is will it be ethical to send it to Mars?"

There is no problem to come back on earth, especially during summer holiday.

Science is modest: all it says is that IF the Mars Rover is conscious, THEN physics has to be derived from a self-reference modality. If such a physics makes the electron weighting one ton, you can conclude that the Mars Rover is not conscious. It might take some times before we get the existence and mass of the electron from addition and multiplication, but we already know how to proceed (time is needed to solve the related and genuine diophantine equations).



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